Amer/Rare
BX
8670.1
. Sn614h
1887
MORMON
AMERICANA
Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Americana Collection
197 22309 7954
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2016 with funding from
Brigham Young University
https://archive.org/details/histenwivestraveOOutah
\f c y
fAZ 1
~ / ! A
T)
U,i
HIS TEN WIVES.
THE
Travels, Trial and Conviction
OF THE
»
FROM
Nauvoo to the Penitentiary.
FROM THE RECORD.
BUTTE, MONTANA!
M. KOCH, PUBLISHER.
1887.
PREFACE.
In the following pages there is only an endeavor to narrate a plain un-
exaggerated story, every word of which is founded on well authenticated
facts and judicial records. The Compiler makes no claim for it as a
novel; he merely states the fact that such a state of affairs exists in this
Western World where it is the popular boast that Liberty, Civilization
and Christianity find their home.
The reader will find as he progresses with the narrative that each
statement of a fact is based upon reliable and trustworthy authority,
cither of Court record or other equals reliable witnesses. Wherever the
records could be reached, the writermas availed himself of them.
It is especially desired that no word shall be construed in this book to
be an intentional personal slur, or abuse of the chief character, Lorenzo
Snow. So far as the writer knows, he personally may be a good man —
of him, representatively, the book treats, as it has a right to do.
The writer was a careful observer of the “Great Trial” from beginning
to conviction. He had free access to the records of the Court wherein
Snow was convicted, and has honestly used them in these pages. For the
courtesy of Court Officers, Attorneys in the case and persons who are not
in the succeeding chapters, he acknowledges his indebtedness, and with
the hope and belief that his labors herein will give information to his fel-
low countrymen, and to others whose homes are beyond the borders of this
Nation, and that the information, will to some extent, aid the Government
and the people at large in providing a full and complete remedy for thp
curse to society and the family— Polygamy— that to-day afflicts Utah and
others of the American Territories, and at this most trying hour arouse
both Government and people to the great danger that is now threatening
and menacing Liberty and Law, by the practical subordination of Civil
Government to Church creed and Priestcraft among the Mormons, he
launches this little volume upon the tide of popular inspection for
approval. The Author.
I
CHAPTER I.
EARLY DAYS OF JOSEPH SMITH.
ABOUT sixty years ago there dwelt in the little town of Manchester,
near Palmyra, New York, an old man named Smith. He had for
his wife a woman of the lowest type of humanity, who was incapable of
telling anything as it might have happened. She hesitated at no false-
hood or exaggeration, and believed in, or pretended to believe in,
charms, ghosts, fortune tellings, signs, omens and mysteries. She was
wholly without moral character, as hosts of witnesses now alive will
testify, and those recently deceased have left evidence of.
Old man Smith was a well digger. His wife undertook jobs of wash-
ing about the village, told fortunes, pilfered such articles as she had op-
portunity to pilfer and was, although densely ignorant and vile, an in-
stitution among her class.
Old man Smith had several sons and daughters; one of the sons was
named Joseph. He was born and spent his childhood in Vermont. This
son was wholly under the evil influence of his mother, who taught him
to believe in all the superstitions she believed in, to trust in all the
signs, omens, etc., that she trusted in and from his childhood she im-
pressed him with the idea he was to be God’s Prophet and work out great
things in the world. This son Joseph soon exhibited aptness in all the
tricks, notions and beliefs of the mother and became, even in early
^childhood, silent, morose, mysterious and* given to strange stories of
supernatural beings and visits.
Personally Joseph, in a sort of a way, followed the trade of his father.
During his early childhood and youth “Joe,” as he was commonly called
by the people of the neighborhood, was a shiftless, lazy sort of fellow,
seldom working, unless upon some occasion when he could get plenty ol
“wiskeyor cider” and do very little labor. But he was always ready to
tell some wild story of miraculous character, and no matter how often
cornered in a falsehood, would “face the lie through. This he had
learned from his mother. In short, Joe was then known, and is, by the
old people of his native village and vicinity to-day spoken of as one who,
did he live to-day, would be considered a sort of “boy crank.
One day, while old man Smith was digging a well, Joe espied a curious
rock or stone, shaped somewhat like a small human foot. He seized it at
6
HIS TEN WIVES.
once, and in a short time some of his supernatural visitors— for he had
not then advanced sufficiently in his career to dignify them as heavenly,
God-ordered visitors— told him the stone he had been led to find by their
agency, was a “seer” or “peek” stone, by looking into which he should be
able to divine great things. Joe was now fifteen years old. He then ex-
perimented under the guidance of his unseen advisers, and soon it
became noised through the village and vicinity that by looking into this
“peek” stone, Joe Smith— the son of the fortune-telling, omen-believing,
pilfering, chronic deceiver and vulgar washerwoman of whom we have
first written— could work wonders.
It became more and more generally reported among the low and super-
stitious classes — the witch-believers of the period — that by the “peek”
stone Joe could see things that were hidden from ordinary mortals, and
could tell all about things that were beyond the knowledge of those
about him.
Did a neighbor lose an article of property, a short consultation with Joe
and his magic “peek” stone was sure to reveal its whereabouts; and it
may be easily inferred that the profits he reaped from this use of the
wonderful stone were by no means unwelcome in the Smith family.
Some gossips, it is true, did not hesitate to declare that when the Smith
family’s exchequer ran low, or became empty, an accommodating mem-
ber of the household would about midnight or some other mysterious,
ghostly hour, visit a neighbor’s premises and carry off a set of harness,
perhaps some apparel from the clothes-line, and put them in place of
hiding. But an application to Joe and his “peek” stone, accompanied by a
fee of a few paltry dollars, never failed to reveal the whereabouts of the
pilfered article, and to secure its safe return. So it appears that Joe,
even when only a “Cheap John” sort of a “seer” and prophet, had that eye
to business that characterized him and his followers in after life.
But be this story as it may, it is certain that about the year 1830 Joe
suddenly assumed a most serious manner, going about alone with down-
cast eye and saddened face, muttering almost inaudibly strange and
curious words, remaining away in seclusion and only appearing in the
company of the ignorant, the superstitious and gullible villagers when
he had some remarkable vision or revelation to tell of. At such times he
would assume a strange air, and tiie wondering rustics ranged around
him.
About this time Joe announced that he had direct communication with
heaven and Jehovah. Under the assurances that vast sums of gold, jew-
els and precious things were buried in the hills, around the little village
of Manchester, near Palmyra, Joe soon impressed upon the minds of the
simple and ignorant class about him that the claims he set up were true.
Then began his reign. He would gather about him old man Smith, his
HIS TEN WIVES.
7
father, his brothers and the bummer element of the village and in the
darkness of night go forth to the hills around Manchester. Silence un-
broken was enjoined. Joe would wave a slender switch which he broke
from the hazel tree as a magic wand, and bearing before him the inspired
“peek” stone, move at the head of his raga-muffins to the hills where all
the wealth, of which God had sent a special messenger in the form of an
angel to tell him, lay buried. Arrived at the hill, strange ceremonies
were gone through with; weird rites were performed, and each one en-
joined to keep the silence of the grave. Then the spades were struck in-
to the ground, and when after hours had passed in silent labor and the
box of buried treasure was about to be uncovered, some excited member
of Joe’s brigade would speak and lo! the box and the gold and the pre-
cious stones were spirited away, and work would be suspended until an-
other night.
This mode of proceeding went on for, perhaps, eight years. In the
meantime Joe and his fanatical followers had dug upon those hills until
the surface for acres round about was honey-combed with holes. But so
for as heard from there is no record that the buried gold and treasures
were ever brought forth.
Steadfast and persevering was Joe Smith. Cheeky, too, he was. With
these traits and the constant urging of his witch-believing mother, he
kept on in this “calling,” that he had now assured the simple people for
great distances around he had received from God.
One day, after an unusually long absence, Joe came silently into his
father’s house, took up a hearthstone and deposited beneath it something
that looked like a little box, which he had brought bundled in an old
blanket or bedspread. His movements were sly, silent and mysterious.
When he had buried it he turned away without a word. No one inter-
rupted him, and no one spoke. The mother, only, presently broke fojth in
some of her weird chants.
About twenty years before the time when Joe began to dictate the ac-
tions of the people of his neighborhood under, as he claimed, ehtorder
of God, there lived in Ashtabula County, Ohio, having left his native State,
Vermont, one of those coughing, asthmatic preachers so often found in
the Eastern States, whose health compels them to give up the “good
work.” His name was Solomon Spaulding. In Vermont he wrote poetry
and fanciful books, like Joaquin Miller and other jackleg poets and
novelists. Spaulding wrote a story after the style of the Bible. He
called it “The Manuscript Found,” and in it he maintained the theory
that the great mounds then found about the United States and which
have been greatly increased by discoveries since that time, were evi-
dences of the former existence of a people, who, although then ex-
tinct, were surely much more advanced and enlightened than the
8
HIS TEN WIVES.
ordinary American Indians. Spaulding, subsequent to the completion
of his story — a sort of a parody upon the Bible — removed to the smoke-
wrapped town of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, taking the manuscript of his
story along. After getting to Pittsburg Spaulding arranged to have the
manuscript “set up” and the story published by a man named Patterson,
who had a printing office in that town. But for some unexplained cause,
the printer gave up the job, possibly for lack of the forthcoming of funds,
and the manuscript was returned to its author. In about two or three
years after the return of the manuscript, Spaulding, the ex-preacher and
owner of the manuscript, died.
Some years before this time, indeed as far back as about 1828, before
Joe had become well trained for his work by the “Angel of the Lord,” a
man named Sidney Rigdon— another of the strange personages who
seemed to have been so interested in Joe Smith that they left earthly and
heavenly homes to visit and talk with him— called and asked to stop
awhile in Joe’s cabin. Rigdon was also an ex-preacher. He had been a
Campbellite parson in Mentor, Ohio. [This little town is now interest-
ing because the martyred Garfield lived there, and near there repose his
bones to-day with the soldiers of the Nation guarding the casket and the
tears of the Nation watering his grave.]
After this the blacksliding Rigdon turned school-master for a time.
The conference he had with Joe Smith was long, secret and significant
in its results, as will be seen as the reader follows this story.
CHAPTER II.
COURT AND PROSECUTOR— ARREST OF LORENZO SNOW.
THE fall term of Court for the First Judicial District of Utah began
November 17, 1885. The Presiding Judge was Orlando W. Powers.
Judge Powers is about 35 years of age. He is by birth a New Yorker.
He left the State of his birth in 1873, and settled in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
In the beginning of the stern battle of life he was not rich, except in the
possession of those rare elements that nature gives to those men whom
she has marked for great deeds and high renown. Judge Powers had no
host of friends, but among those he did possess were industry, brains,
courage, and an exalted ambition. He had graduated at the Michigan
Law School with honor, and soon won the confidence, esteem and patron-
age of the people of his adopted home. In April, 1885, he was selected
by the President of the United State to be Associate Justice of the Utah
Supreme Court, and assigned to the First Judicial District, within which,
at Ogden City and Provo, he was to hold his Courts. The field to which he
was called was uninviting. It was here that he— a stranger— was to wit-
ness the great crimes, or at least hear the stories of the great crimes that
have made Utah a stench in the nostrils of civilized Nations, and a putrid
excrescence upon the body politic of the great Republic. How he has
met, grasped and performed the task imposed upon him this true story
will in part tell.
The Representative of the Government as Prosecutor in the Ogden
Vic.Court was Bierbower, Esq., whom the District Attorney for Utah, W.
H. Dickson, selected as Assistant in the Autumn of 1885. Mr. Bierbower
is a Pennsylvanian. At a somewhat early day he located in Nebraska,
with Sidney, of Cowboy notoriety and Buffalo Bill fame, as his head-
quarters. “Vic,” as his friends call him, was popular with the “broad-
brims” of the cattle ranges and was chosen to represent them in tqe Leg-
islature, and also elected District Attorney in the Fifth Judicial District
of Nebraska.
With a full complement of worthy Court Officers, but a community of
which eight-tenths hated him as they would any loyal American officer,
Judge Powers began his official career in Utah.
On the 19th day of November, 1885, a complaint was filed before United
States Commissioner T. J. Black, and a warrant issued thereon was given
10
HIS TEN WIVES.
to United States Marshal Oscar Vandercook to execute. The charge was
that Lorenzo Snow, in Box Elder County, Utah Territory, did, in certain
years, unlawfully live and cohabit with more than one woman at the
same time as his wife. It was filed under an act of Congress to sup-
press polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, now generally known as the
“Edmunds Law,” which was enacted in 1882. A number of witnesses
were named at the time the warrant for Snow was issued and these the
officers were directed to subpoena and have, with Snow, before the
Commissioner on the day named in the warrant, to testify as to the
charge. Duputy Marshal Vandercook called to his assistance five
officers.
At an hour after midnight these officers silently left Ogden in several
conveyances and drove to Brigham City, where “Apostle” Snow with his
society of followers and sworn adherents lived. Here he had builded
his stronghold; here he had his “co-operative store” — a gigantic estab-
lishment for the reception of grinding taxes and tithes from the deluded
people, drawn from them under pretense of a divine order, and used to
enrich the Priesthood and to pay for murders and blood atonings and to
bribe such scoundrelly United States officers in Utah and Washington as
were approachable, and to meet the expenses incurred in defense and
management of Saints for the perpetuation of Priest rule, Polygamy and
other Mormon infamies. Here too, surrounded by the stolen gains of
years of sinful rule, he had established his harem. It consisted of sever-
al houses with convenient surroundings and peopled with the women
whom his lust had taken in their youth, despoiled of their precious vir-
tue and used as concubines; throwing upon the world a flock of illegiti-
mate children — future Saints and Saintesses. All these things in the
name of God, who has commanded “Thou shall not commit adultery; thou
shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor’s wife, nor anything that is his; thou shalt do no mur-
der; and woe unto you, Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites, woe unto
you, Fornicators, Liars and Blasphemers.”
It must be borne in mind that in Utah every Mormon is oathbound
and a slave, except the “President” of the Church and a few of hia
Associate “Officers.” Every Mormon is a spy for the Priesthood. Every
woman a ready and willing victim to the brutish passion of such a man
as shall prove himself devoted to the infamous doctrines and purposes of
the Priesthood, and who will pass through the ordeal of secret rites
and ceremonies required by those mountebanks in the Endowment
House at the initiation of sinners to Sainthood.
Surrounded by such people as these, the finding and arrest of the lead-
ers charged with crime is by no means a light or easy undertaking. It
was because of this state of things in Utah that Deputy Marshal Vander-
HIS TEN WIVES.
11
cook took several assistants and rode to Snow’s stronghold under cover of
night. His purpose was to arrive there unbeknown to Snow or his
pickets and spies. And yet with all this precaution the “old man” had
become aware of the expedition and when the officer knocked at the
door of the house where he was known to live the greater portion of
his time when in Brigham City, the woman “Minnie”— formerly Jen-
sen and latest of his “Saintly Darlings”— after some delay, appeared
at the door and with hands and eyes up-lifted to God, swore that Loren-
zo Snow had been absent from the house and Brigham City for months
and was then she knew not where.
But the United States officers knew full well that no dependence
could be placed upon the assurances of those who are so well trained in
crime, in sin, in treason and falsehood, and who are wedded to such ser-
vice by bonds and ties whose monstrous enormity none but the non-fanat-
ical appreciate and habituated to dissemble, evade and falsify when one
of the “Church” people and interests are at stake; and to swear falsely,
if need be, to shield the one or the other for which the forgiveness of God
was always plentifully at hand, ready-made— politely stepped inside the
house and searched it from cellar to garret. That search was in vain.
No “Apostle” could be found, nor, indeed, did they find even a trace of
his recent presence there. With polite explanations of their duty under
the warrant to intrude upon a woman’s private rooms, they bid Minnie
good-bye and started off. But the whining and movements of a dog that
was tied near the house attracted notice. Deputy Marshal Vandercook
noted the intentness with which the dog looked into a sort of cellar win-
dow or opening for air and light. The parties returned to the inside of
the house and again began to search. Presently the carpet under an
Angora goat skin was noticed. It was not tacked down. It was at once
removed. A trap door was found and lifted. Down into an under-
ground passage went the officer. Another trap door was discovered.
This led into a sort of cave or dugout, about 4x8 feet. Rapping up-
on this door the officer called: “Snow! Come out! It is just as well. I
know you are there. Come forth, or I batter dowrn the door!” “All right;
I will come out!” came from the recess of the dugout, and in a moment,
lo! the great Apostle of God stood before the loyal men of the Government.
He was informed that he was under arrest and heard the reading of the
warrant. He replied by asserting his belief that they “could not make
out a case against him,” and then asked the boys to take a drink!
The remainder of this stage of the proceedings can be briefly told.
Snow was taken along with the inmates of his harem, to Ogden. He
waived examination before Commissioner Black, and was bailed. D. H.
Perry, Mayor of Ogden, and H. S. Young, of a Mormon Bank, became
sureties for his appearance to answer any indictment that the Grand
12
HIS TEN WIVES.
Jury, soon to be called together, might return against him. His women
were recognized to appear as witnesses before the same “inquisitorial
board,” as the Mormon press called the Grand Jury, and the curtain was
rung down on another act of this life drama.
CHAPTER III.
SNOW IN THE HANDS OF THE LAW — INDICTED.
THE news of the arrest of an Apostle of God, the sacrilege of seizing a
Prophet, a Seer and man who had confidential and personal rela-
tions with Jehovah, as well as with the inmates of his harem and the
dupes of his Church, spread like a prairie fire. Secret meetings were
held; spies enjoined to be active; special prayeTS were said; tithes poured
in rapidly. Mormon newspapers opened their wrathful batteries of
threats, abuse, treason and libel, while Elders, Deacons, Priests and lay-
men vowed vengeance upon the Gentile “beasts” who dared to desecrate
the soil on which God’s Holy Apostle and his faded, worn-out and now
barren women “companions” had trod. And yet amid it all the reader
will see that the Court and its officers stood firm.
As the opening day of the Court of the First Judicial Dis-
trict, to be held at Ogden, approached, public interest ran high, and pub-
lic opinion and gossip grew angry and excited. The tone of popular
sentiment was tempered on the one side by the well settled hope and be-
lief that the great combination of the Mormons would be successfully
assailed. The Mormons waxed warmer, and more angry and threaten-
ing on the other hand, under the pulpit and ward meeting harangues of
their head men, which, brimful of treason, disloyalty and fanaticism as
they were, were scattered broadcast over the Territory by the enslaved
press of the Church.
The looked for 17th day of November, 1883, arrived. The town was un-
usually filled with bustle and strangers. Jurors, Grand Jurors, witness-
es and parties litigant, numerous as they were, made up but a fraction of
the throng who moved along the streets, congregated in public houses,
and gathered in little groups, here and there, busily engaged in low and
earnest conversation. In five minutes after the doors of the Court-room
were thrown open, every seat and every standing space was taken, and
the vacant places in aisles and passages filled to a jam, while the hall
outside the Court-room was packed its entire length. All knew that num-
bers of all sorts of criminal and civil cases were to be taken up and
passed upon, and all knew that an “Apostle” of God had been dragged,
with his harem-people, into that room, and was yet under bonds to ans-
wer what accusation the Grand Jury, who were that morning to be se-
lected and organized, might prefer against him.
14
HIS TEN WIVES.
Whispers grew loud as the minute hands of the clock moved on
slowly, oh, how slowly! as if delighting in the torment of suspense.
Denser and denser grew the crowd of anxious spectators; closer and
closer they packed themselves, all eager and anxious to know who would
be Grand Jurors and what the Judge would say in his charge.
It must not be forgotten that the “Judicial Mills” had just begun to
“grind slowly,” and upon this day’s proceedings depended, to a great ex-
tent, the problem of how small they would grind.
Precisely at 10 o’clock Judge Powers took his seat. Bailiff 0. S.
Bridges— an old soldier of the Union— called order, and a hush like that
of a tomb fell upon the vast throng. Every officer of the Court was in
his place. Every resident Attorney and many from adjoining States and
Territories took seats with their brethren. Upon making the proper re-
turn the officer was directed to call the Grand Jury. It was done, and
after the usual examination of each the following names were selected
and accepted, and will go down through the years that are to come as
the men selected by a hostile Government to persecute God’s chosen peo-
ple, to harass and outrage their “inspired” Prophet and Apostle and
trample upon and desecrate the holy principles, revelations and com-
mands of the great Ruler of the world. These are the immortal fifteen.
Immortal in infamous memory in the eye of the Mormon fanatics; im-
mortal in the esteem of true Americans and loyal men throughout the
world because they knew their duty and amid such surroundings never
faltered in its performance.
John W. McNutt, native of Virginia; Foreman, 0. E. Hill, of California;
Clerk, David Thornborn, Nevada; L. B. Stephens, Ohio; A. Peterson, Den-
mark; J. S. Lew#is, Tennessee; S. S. Schranim, Ohio; W. M. Chapman, Illi-
nois; G. G. Griffiths, Ohio; C. B. Payson, Michigan; John B. Hopkins, New
York; H. C. Wadleigh, California; J. R. Crendall, Michigan; F. A. Shields,
England, and Isaac Rabel, a Hebrew.
These men were all representative business men who ha lived in
Utah for periods ranging from three to twenty years. Each man ans-
wered to his name, took the prescribed oath and the panel resumed their
seats.
At this moment the hush that pervaded the Court-room was that of the
chamber of death. It was caused by Judge Powers’ charge and was as
follows:
CHAPTER IV.
CHARGE OF JUDGE POWERS TO THE GRAND JURY.
GENTLEMEN of the Grand Jury: It is my duty to charge you
specifically, to make due and diligent inquiry, whether the laws of
our country, relative to Polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, are being
infringed in the District. I therefore charge you to investigate this
matter. For years the laws relative to the marriage relation have been
set at defiance in this Territory. This is a fact of such common notoriety,
that the Court is bound to take Judicial knowledge of it. But this state
of affairs cannot be allowed longer to exist. The Government is in earn-
est. The laws of the land must be enforced, and guilty parties taught
that if they continue in their evil course, they must pay the penalty.
People must learn that the law can no more be violated with impunity
in Utah, than it can be in the States. They must understand that the
great moral sentiment of the Nation is opposed to plural marriage. The
sooner they learn the lesson, they must learn, sooner or later, that the
law must be obeyed, and that Utah is a portion of the United States, the
better it will be for all. It is strange that any will pursue the path that
the people of this Territory seem determined to take. Here, amid these
Mountains, Nature’s own great treasure vaults, enclosing Valleys so fer-
tile that they need only to be “tickled with the hoe in the Spring time
to laugh with the harvest in Autumn,” could be framed an intelligent,
enterprising State. Some day this will be done, but it will not be un -
til our people learn to love their country, learn to obey its laws, and
learn to reverence that great institution of civilization, the home, with
its wife and mother, revered and honored by the husband and father.
The laws relative to marriage relations, which the Court expects your
aid in enforcing, are just laws, and are constitutional laws. As was said
by the Supreme Court of the United States, “no Legislation can be
supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free,
self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank among the co-ordinate
States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it upon the basis
of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the
union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matri-
mony, the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civiliza-
tion; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of
all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”
16
HIS TEN WIVES.
The crime of Bigamy, or Polygamy, consists in entering into a Biga-
mous or Polygamous marriage. • The offense is complete when any per-
son who has a husband or wife living marries another. It is also com-
plete when any man simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more
than one woman. This, however, does not apply to any person by reason
of any former marriage, whose husband or wife by such marriage has
been absent for five successive years and is believed by such persons to be
dead, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall
have been dissolved by a valid decree of a competent Court, on the
ground of nullity of marriage contract.
In this Territory there is no law regulating marriage. No form of
ceremony is required, and no record of marriage is kept. Marriage is
left as it was at common law. There need be no witness present. If the
parties are competent to contract, all that is essential is a present agree-
ment. The marriage is complete when there is a full, free and mutual
consent of parties capable of contracting. Proof that parties have treated
each other as husband and wife, have lived together as such, and have held
each other out to the world as such, is sufficient to enable a Court
or Jury to find that at some previous time the parties did, as a fact, con-
sent to be married, and as a fact agree to be husband and wife. The
mode of life, the holding out, the declarations or admissions of the
accused, and the like, are circumstantial evidence from which the fact
of marriage may be inferred.
The offense of cohabitation is complete when a man, to all outward ap-
pearances, is living or associating with more than one woman as his
wife. To constitute the offense, it is not necessary that it be shown that
the parties indulge in sexual intercourse. The intention of the law-
making power, in enacting the law against cohabitation and Polyga-
my, was to protect Monogamous marriage by prohibiting all other
marriage, whether evidenced by a ceremony, or by conduct and cir-
cumstances alone. ,
An indictment may be found against a man guilty of cohabitation,
for every day, or other distinct interval of time, during which he offends.
Each day that a man cohabits with more than one woman, as I have de-
fined the word “cohabit,” is a distinct and separate violation of the law,
and is liable to punishment for each separate offense. A Grand Jury is
vested with very large discretion in limiting the time within which a
series of acts may be alleged as constituting a single offense. Com. v.
Robinson, 120 Mass., 262.
I also charge you, that if you should find that a man is guilty of co-
habiting with two or more women, one of whom resides in this District
and the other in some other District in this Territory, you should indict
him; for the offense is deemed by the law to be completed and commit-
HIS TEN WIVES.
17
ted here. The Statute of the United States says, “where an offense
against the United States is begun in one Judicial District and com-
pleted in another, it shall be deemed to have been committed in either,
and may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in
either District, in the same manner as if it had been actually and
wholly committed therein.” Rev. St. U. S. 731.
* * * Hi * * * * He Hi
Now, gentlemen, the Court expects you to do your whole duty. Bear
constantly in mind your oath, that you will “diligently inquire into and
true indictments make of all public offenses against the United States
and the people of this Territory committed or triable within this District
of which you shall have legal evidence. That you will indict no person
through malice, hatred, or ill will, nor leave any unindicted through
fear, favor, affection, or for any reward or the promise or hope thereof;
but in all your indictments you will state the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, according to the best of your skill and under-
standing.” You will now retire and enter upon your labors.
The delivery of the charge which was full and directory upon every
possible question within the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury, was listened
to with the most marked attention by all within the Court-room. The
voice of the Judge rang out clear as a bell. His articulation was excel-
lent and his manner and emphasis impressive. He spoke as the earnest
man speaks. He impressed the listener with the belief that he was on
that bench fully appreciative of the responsibility resting upon him.
Full master- of the great problem presented to the Government he sat
there to represent, yet so kindly was his bearing, so regretful were his
tones that at times one almost felt that the stern determination of the
Judge, to see the law upheld, would melt into the pity of the man for the
persons who were daily and hourly violating that law. Never was there
a more perfect instance of a Court blending the suaviter in modo, and
the fortiter in verbo.
Upon the conclusion of the charge, the Grand Jurors were given into
the care of Bailiff 0. S. Bridges and retired to their Council Chamber for
organization and work. There for many weeks they were laboring for
the good of society, for the purging of a great community cursed with
many, many criminals, and executing the plan adopted by the law to
shield a good citizen from the consequences of the misdeeds of bad
citizens.
When this work was finished — the event of the day — the Court pro-
ceeded with the routine duty and the great concourse of spectators left
the hall. There were solemn faces on every hand. The “charge” was
canvassed pro and con. The great majority, being Polygamist in fact,
-or Mormons, who are Polygamists in faith, denounced Justice Pow-
18
HIS TEN WIVES.
ers as a Jeffries, a cruel, inhuman monster, a vile persecutor of religion
and Godly people, and then began the scheming and planning to com-
pass his defeat in the United States Senate, when the President should
send his name to that high body for confirmation. A scheming and
planning that, unhappily for the country at large, yea, for civilization
everywhere, was not foiled, by reason of unusual and most despicable
means in men, money, vilification and perjury.
CHAPTER V.
THE MAN WITH TEN WIVES INDICTED.
SOON after their retirement the Grand Jury returned into the Court
three indictments charging Lorenzo Snow with violations of
the United States Law— the Statute popularly known as the “Edmunds
Law.” These indicements were pretty much identical, except that the
offenses were laid in three different years, viz. 1883, 1884 and 1885. The
following is a copy of the indictment:
United States of America,
AGAINST
Lorenzo Snow.
The Grand Jurors of the United States of America, within and for the
District aforesaid, in the Territory aforesaid, being duly empaneled and
sworn, on their oaths do find and present that Lorenzo Snow, late of said
District, in the Territory aforesaid, heretofore, to-wit: On the first day
of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
eight-five, at the County of Box Elder, in the said District, Territory
aforesaid, and within the Jurisdiction of this Court, and on divers others
days and times thereafter, and continuously between said first day of
January, A. D. 1885, and the first day of December, A. D, 1885, did then
and there unlawfully live and cohabit with more than one woman, to-
wit: With Adeline Snow, Sarah Snow, Harriet Snow, Eleanor Snow,
Mary H. Snow, Phoebe W. Snow, and Minnie Jensen Snow, and during
all the periods aforesaid, at the County aforesaid, he, the said Lorenzo
Snow, did unlawfully claim, live and cohabit with all of said women as
his wives, against the form of the Statute of said United States in such
case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the same.
V. Bierbower,
J. W. McNutt, Asst. U. S. District Attorney.
Foreman of Grand Jury.
CHAPTER VI.
PEN PICTURE OF THE COURT AND SURROUNDINGS.
HE accused “Apostle” in due time appeared in Court with a vast ar-
ray of Counsel, and pleaded “not guilty.” A day was fixed for
hearing that was acceptable to all parties and on Wednesday December
30th, 1885, under the charge relating to 1885, Snow’s trial began.
The writer of these pages had been selected by the proprietor of the
newspaper, of whose editorial staff he was that time a member, to attend
and carefully note every step in these proceedings. This was done for
the two reasons, that under the existing state of pnblic anxiety and
hate, it was right, just and politic that the exact truth should be made
public, and because this trial of one of the most prominent, accom-
plished, influential, wealthy and powerful men in this Anti-American Or-
ganization, known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints,
was by all odds the most significant and important trial ever held in
Utah Territory. It was in fact a trial of the supremacy of law over
license; of the power to convict one who was high in the Counsels of
those who have erected, and to-day maintain in the heart of the United
States, a Church Government of Priests to which they subordinate the
laws of the American Congress, made in pursuance of the American
Constitution, and adjudicated and prononnced valid by that august
tribunal — The Supreme Court of the United States! This is the problem
presented in Utah to-day, and this is the evil which the statesmanship of
the country is called upon to wipe out and to destroy!
The scene presented in the Court-room and adjacent offices when the
“Hear ye; Hear ye,” of Bailiff Bridges announced the opening of Court
on Wednesday morning, was one whose memory will go with each per-
son there to his grave. It is as fresh to-day as then, and will often, no
doubt, in after years be told around the winter fireside by the children
of to-day; for it must be borne in mind that the interest in that investi-
gation was not confined to any especial class or age or sex— the aged, the
young, the hale and the infirm were represented, and it is more than
probable that hereafter, in the evening of their lives, the boys and girls
of to-day who attended this trial of Apostle Snow, looking down the
broad vista of youthful years, will relate its scenes and incidents to their
HIS TEN WIVES.
21
families, while each step and happening will serve as a link— a well re-
membered link to unite that present with this past.
In his cushioned chair sat Justice Powers — pale, peaceful, calm and
intellectual in appearance. On his left was District Clerk A. C. Emer-
son, young, handsome, competent and obliging. On his right Sat A. H.
Winne, official stenographer of the Court, quick as lightning, accurate,
skilful, bright and, off duty, the prince of good fellows. Upon a row of
chairs along the left wall were Weber County officials, Sheriff Belknap,
and others, all Mormons, good officers and friends and sympathizers with
the accused “Holy Man of God.” Immediately in front of the Court sat
Assistant District Attorney Vic. Bierbower, the sole Representative of the
United States Government in the capacity of Counsel; near him were
clustered the company of Counsel who were there to fight the great
Church Leader’s battle— these were Franklin S. Richards, Esq., a petted
son of a Mormon Apostle to whom every opportunity for accomplish-
ment by study, schooling and travel had been afforded, and to whom his
father looked with pride and possibly the hope that ere long he, too, would
be a high dignitary in the Church Counsels of “God’s chosen people”—
Messrs. Bennett, Harkness & Kirkpatrick, a prominent firm of Salt Lake
City Attorneys; Hon. Rufus K. Williams, of Ogden, Ex-Chief Justice of
Kentucky, and in his earlier years a personal friend of the martyred
Lincoln, and Messrs. Rollopp and Richards, rising young attorneys of
Ogden and personal, political and religious sympathisers with the
“Apostle” whom they had come to defend. It was a grand array of legal
talent, with at least one more than ordinary orator in its ranks.
Just to the right front and within the bar were the twelve seats that
were soon to be occupied'by the men who were to decide upon the guilt
or innocence of the defendant; while at their immediate right was a
table for the representatives of the local and distant press. All other
seats within the bar were taken by attorneys not engaged in the “great
trial.” At the door, opening on the left to the United States Marshal’s
office, Deputy Oscar Vandercook stood — erect as a soldier, silent as the
sphynx, prompt, reliable, safe, sure and ever-ready, this officer, sur-
rounded by Deputies Steel and Perkins, able, willing and reliable as-
sociates, seemed the impersonation of calm courage, intelligent action
and gentlemanly bearing. But the picture that first caught and held
the eye of everyone was that just in the rear of the attorneys it was
Lorenzo Snow and his seven living wives and a baby, in its mother’s
arms! It was “Minnie’s” baby. These seven were Adeline, Sarah, Har-
riet, Eleanor, Mary H., Phoebe W., and Minnie Jensen Snow. Had not
death laid his cold hand upon them and borne them away to the land
of silence, there would have been three other “wives” gathered about
this “Man of God!” A glance at the “seven” prepared one for the fearful
22
HIS TEN WIVES.
story soon to be told by each one from the witness-stand. Some wer£
old and enfeebled —the cast-aside, useless, used-to-be companions of the
grayhaired man who sat in their midst. Others were younger in years
and appearance, but on the faces of all, the observer readily detected a
picture of sadness and sorrow and on a majority, a look of abject apathy,
of hopes blasted, of love long dried up and withered and deeply settled
despair. In their midst sat an aged man. Tall, well proportioned,
graceful and easy of manner notwithstanding his age, with a finely
shaped head, about which clustered luxurious locks of steel-gray wavy
hair, a fine face, betokening intelligence and quickness of mind, a sen-
sual mouth, a somewhat prominent nose, and eyes as bright as stars,
that glittered like diamonds in lamplight, and in their expression min-
gled jollity rather than care and cunning rather than force. That man
was Apostle Snow !
«
CHAPTER VII.
“WE ARE READY” RESPONDED THE COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES.
AT the call of the case, “we are ready” came in response from prose-
cution and defense.
“Call a Jury” said the Court, and then began the work of selecting the
twelve who should decide the old man’s fate. Contrary to general ex-
pectation little difficulty was encountered and soon both parties
intimated the acceptance of the twelve men before them, and here are
the names of the Jurors who tried Snow:
*D. H. Spencer, Foreman; A. J. Stone, Adam Kuhn, Alexander T. Bow-
man, George Bune, E. W. Smout, John Keck, Benjamin Garr, Frank Car-
son, Thomas Grant (a Mormon) Joseph Smith and Frederick Foy.
To this panel the oath was administered, they took their seats and calm
as a master in a storm, Judge Powers said: “Call your witnesses.”
The testimony which has been carefully examined by the writer from
the record, was in every possible material point as follows:
The defendant by his Counsel admitted before the Court and Jury that
he had been married to all the women named in the indictment; the last
marriage being in 1871, and that he never was divorced from either; and
ever since the respective marriages has claimed each of said women as
his wife, but he did not admit that he had cohabited with more than one
of them during any part of the time charged in the indictment.
Harriet Snow, a witness sworn for the prosecution, testified:
“My name is Harriet Snow. I was married to Lorenzo Snow in Nauvoo
in 1846, and I have never been divorced from him.”
Q.— “How long have you lived together?”
.Objected to by the Defendant’s Counsel, on the ground that the ques-
tion should be confined to the year 1885, as there were in this Court two
other separate indictments, found at the same time as the one upon
which the defendant is now on trial, one for cohabiting with the same
women during 1884, and one for cohabiting with the same women dur-
ing 1883, and that the Court had previously held that such separate in-
dictments might be found ; and Counsel offered to produce these indict-
ments in evidence in support of the objection, if the Court should be of
the opinion that Judicial notice of them could not be taken.
24
HIS TEN WIVES.
The Court ruled that it would take Judicial notice of the other indict-
ments covering 1883 and 1884, and of the prior rulings of the Court in re-
spect to them, and overruled the objection, holding in substance that the
relations between the women named in the indictment and defendant,
prior to 1885, might be shown for the purpose of throwing light upon
their conduct during the time named in the indictment.
The defendant by Counsel excepted to the ruling.
The Court also announced that evidence of this kind might be deemed
taken under defendant’s objection and exception, without repeating the
objection.
Witness. — “I am not living with Mr. Snow' as husband and wife. I have
in former days. I don’t know as I could tell how long we lived together.
We ceased living together long before the Edmunds Law was passed. I
can’t tell how long before, I haven’t the dates. My maiden name was
Squire. I have three living children by the marriage. I am now living
in my own house, and am mistress of it and preside there. I am not liv-
ing alone; I have a step-son residing with me. His mother died and left
him to me, and I raised him from a child. I have been living this way
by myself a good many years. I lived so before the brick house was
built. The order of the marriages is: first, Adeline, who is one of two
ladies he married at the same time; Charlotte, the other one, is dead; then
comes Sarah, then myself, then Eleanor, then Mary, then Phoebe, and the
last is Minnie. There was one more, Caroline, who is dead. Mr. Snow
lived in one wing of the old homestead before he moved to the brick
house, and Minnie lived with him. The old homestead has four wings,
and before the removal Sarah, Eleanor, myself and Minnie lived there.
There is a roof on each wing, but they are owned by separate individuals.
It was one large house with four wings. Mr. Snow did not live with' me,
he lived with Minnie in one wing of the house. I was married to Mr.
Snow forty years ago this month, and he is the father of my children, and
I am not a widow lady. I live in my own house ; he provided it for me, and
arranged where I might draw my support, and it has always been so and
continued up to December, 1885. He has visited me a few times at my
house in 1885, sometimes for a few minutes, to inquire about the
children and ask about their welfare. I could not tell how often, but he
visits me.”
Q. — “What difference, if any, is there in your relations between your-
self and Mr. Snow from the 1st of January to the 1st of December, 1885,
and your relations with him six years ago?”
Objected to by defendant. Objection overruled and defendant ex-
cepted.
A.— “A good deal of deal of difference; in my younger days Hived with
him as a wife and raised him children. Now I am an old lady, and I do
HIS TEN WIVES.
25
not consider the relations that were binding on me in my younger days
are so now, and I do not live with him in the same way.”
Q.— “The only difference then between your past mode of living and
the present is in not being so much in his company.”
A. — “I stated that there was a good deal of difference. He does not
live with me now, not in the same house. He has not dined with me in
1885; he has his own place to board. I think I stated before the Grand
Jury that he had dined with me in 1885, but when I come to examine I find
he was not there at the time supposed, but was absent. I might have
stated before the Grand Jury that he had not dined with me unless he
was invited, and I have not invited him there this year. He has been
away a good deal in 1885, a good part of the year. I think he went some
time in May and returned about fall. I did not see him until after he
was taken. I think he was away most of the time. I have no recollec-
tion of him introducing me as his wife during the past year. I was in
the Marshal’s office about the 21st day of November, 1885, with other
ladies, waiting to be called before the United States Commiesioner at the
examination. Mr. Snow introduced me to Brother Peery, and he said:
« Harriet, this is Brother Peery,’ and I shook hands with him. That is all
I could hear of it. I did not understand that he introduced me as his
wife. My attention was called to this matter in the Grand Jury room.”
Q.— “State how you testified before the Grand Jury?”
A.— “I did not state that he introduced me as ‘his wife— if I did I did
not understand it. I said he introduced Brother Peery to me, but as to
the form I knew nothing further.”
Cross-examined:
“Since the 1st of January, 1885, 1 have lived on the same block which
Mr. Snow lives on, on Main Street; I live on one corner and he lives on
the opposite corner. Frank Snow lives with me, he is the son
of Caroline, who is dead. I occupy five rooms in the wing I live
in. Mr. Snow has no room in the house, and he does not occupy
any room there. He has not eaten there during this year. He has
come to the house a very few times, it has been so long I could not give
the number, but not very often. He sometimes came to see Frank on
business. Frank has sometimes been in the Probate office, and he is en-
gaged in merchandizing now. He would stay just a few minutes, and
sit down for half a minute or half an hour maybe. I cannot state the
number of times he came in 1885. He has not been in my house since
last Spring, and he was not in more than two or three times in 1885, dur-
ing the eleven months. I always found Minnie at the brick house, when
I went. No mail matter directed to him comes to my house, and none of
his business papers come there. His office is in the biick house.
Q_«During the time from January 1st to December 1st, 1885, has
26
HIS TEN WIVES.
there been any sexual relations between you and Mr. Snow?”
Objected to by the Prosecuting Attorney. Objection sustained and de-
fendant excepted.
“The house I live in is not a brick house, it is an adobe house. Frank
Snow is in his twenty-ninth year. The length of the calls defendant
made were from five, ten or fifteen minutes to half an hour. They were
in the daytime, and he has not passed a night in the house.”
Re-direct examination:
“I think Mr. Snow is seventy-two years old next April. I do not visit
Minnie’s house very often. Minnie’s house is centrally located in town,
it stands right across from the big Co-op. store. When he called to see
me he did not visit anyone else in the house that I know of. No one lives
under the same roof with him except Minnie and the hired girl.”
CHAPTER VIII.
THE STORY OF THREE MORE OF THE VICTIMS OF LUST.
MARY Snow, called for the prosecution, testified:
“My name is Mary Snow; my husband is Lorenzo Snow, and I
was married in 1857. I live in my own house opposite the Tabernacle in
Brigham City, by myself. I have so lived eleven years of more. Previous
to that time I lived in the old homestead for many years, and Sarah, Har-
riet and Eleanor lived there. At that time, Mr. Snow lived there. I have
children by that marriage. From 1857, up to about eleven years ago I
lived there. The difference in the relationship between me and my hus-
band then and now is, I live by myself entirely alone. He calls on me as
any other gentleman friend. He has called to see my family during the
past year four or five times. I believe he has been absent some time dur-
ing the year. There is a great deal of difference between our relations
the past year and eleven years ago. I am living alone now.”
Q— “Is not that the only difference? Is it not true that he has not called
as much as he used to, and is not that the only difference?”
A. — “He does not call so much for the reason that he has
been away from town. He does not visit me as much as he did a num-
ber of years ago.”
Q. — “Then the reason that he visits you less has been because he has
been away a great portion of the year?”
A.— “Yes, I guess so. He has been away the last year.”
Cross-examined:
“The property I occupy is not on the same block with the brick house.
It is about two and a half blocks distant. I think he has called four or
five times in 1885. He called to see the family, and stayed from half a
minute to half an hour perhaps. The visits were in the daytime. He
has not passed a night in my house, and there is no room kept for him
there. None of his mail matter or business papers came to my house.”
Counsel for defendant here stated to the Court that they desired to ask
this witness, and each of the women named in the indictment who
should be called, the question propounded to the first witness as to wheth-
er any sexual relations existed between the defendant and witness in
1885, for the purpose of saving the question. The Court declined to per-
mit the question on the ground that the Supreme Courts of Utah and of
28
HIS TEN WIVES.
the United States had held it immaterial, but stated that defendant
should have the benefit of the exception in the record, as fully as if
the question had been asked of each witness. Objected to, the objection
sustained, exception taken by the defendant.
Witness.— “I think the defendant has not eaten in my house in the
year 1885.”
Re-direct:
“In these visits and in all our intercourse we recognized each oth-
er as a husband and wife just as much to-day as ever.”
Eleanor Snow, called for the prosecution, testified:
“My husband is Lorenzo Snow, and I was married to him about thirty-
five years ago, in Nauvoo. I have children. I reside in the old home-
stead in company with Harriet and Sarah. Mary lives alone, and
Adeline lives about three blocks to half a mile from our place. Phoebe
lives in different compartments of the same house with Adeline. I have
been living where I do now about twenty years, I guess. Mr. Snow lives
across the block, and has lived there about four years, I guess. Previous
to that he lived in the old homestead, in the same house with me and
Sarah and Harriet. Adeline and Phoebe moved, I don’t remember how
long since. We have not all lived in one house since, there were so
many of us. In 1885, Mr. Snow, has called to see me for a few min-
utes no more than two or three times. He has been away a good deal
of the time, as near as I can fix it seven months. Before he went away,
he called merely for a few minutes. In his intercourse with me I do not
know what relationship he exhibited toward me. It is not as husband
and wife; I live by myself. I guess I recognized him as my husband and
he me as a wife during 1885, 1 don’t know. The difference in our re-
lationship the past year and formerly is, he does not live at my place.
I guess the only difference is that he is not in my company so much; you
understand. He has not dined with me during the past year. Previous
to that he had dined and visited with me once in a while. When he
dined with me, it was with me and my children unless there was com-
pany that had been invited, as company to these family gatherings. Mr.
Snow occupies the position as head of the family, and occupies the head
of the table when he is there. He does that at any of his friends or neigh-
bors, they all put him at the head of the table.”
Cross-examined:
“I have three children living with me, their ages are 22, 19 and 15
years. I occupy six rooms. There is no room kept for Mr. Snow, none of
his mail or business papers come to the house. I think he has
called about three times during this year, but he has not dined there*
He would stop from ten to fifteen minutes. I live in what is called the
old homestead. He r called at the house to enquire about the children
HIS TEN WIVES.
29
and folks, and would stay from ten to fifteen minutes. Sometimes he
would sit down, but he is generally in a hurry. He has not passed a
night in the house or slept there.”
Sarah Snow, called for the prosecution, testified:
“I am the wife of Lorenzo Snow, and have been married nearly forty
years, and I have grown children. I live at the old homestead on
Main Street, in company with Harriet and Eleanor, and we live by
ourselves with our children. I have been living there nearly thirty
years. Five years ago Minnie lived in one wing of the old homestead,
and. Mr. Snow lived with Minnie part of the time and boarded with her.
Up to the time Minnie came there to live he boarded with me, about ten
years ago. I lived with him from the time I was married up to about
ten years ago, then I had a place by myself. I have never been divorced.
He has not introduced me as his wife for the last ten years as I can re-
member, but there has been no less the relation of husband and wife.
He has supported me, and our social intercourse is friendly. He calls
now occasionally.”
Q.— “What difference, if any, is there in the relation between you and
your husband the past year, and the relations of ten years ago?”
A.— “Well, about the same, only he has not seen me, has not called. I
have been away myself.”
Q.— “State if he calls less frequently each year as he grows older.”
A. — “Yes, sir.”
Q.,— “State if it is not the only difference in your relations in living
that he does not call to see you as often as. he did formerly?”
A. — “Well, sometimes he calls and sometimes he don’t call.”
“I do not see him as much as I did five years ago, for he lived right
there five years ago. He does not visit me as much as he did when he
boarded with me. Five years ago he lived right there next door. I
recollect being here at the preliminary examination and being intro-
duced to Brother Peery. I cannot say how it was done. I sat in the
Marshal’s office but I did not notice how. I could not state to save my
life.”
Cross-examined:
“I occupy, with my family, ten or twelve rooms. I have five children
in all, two living at home with me, the youngest 22 and the other 29.
I live in the old homestead. When Mr. Snow goes home he passes by the
door, that is one way to go through the lot. He has been in my house in
1885, perhaps two or three times. I went away in the Spring, and he
has been away six or seven months. I went to Salt Lake in the Spring.
I believe the second of April, I think he has called perhaps two or three
times. He would remain perhaps half an hour. He might have stayed
an hour. It would be during the day, I could not state the time. He
30
HIS TEN WIVES.
has not remained or been there during the night and never slept in the
house since he moved to the brick house. There is no room kept for him.
None of his business papers or mail comes to the house. When he would
come at the times I have mentioned in 1885, he would generally be busy
with Alviras, my son, who is 22 years old and engaged at the Co-op. The
Co-op. is under the management of the defendant. He generally would be
busy with Alviras. Sometimes his calls of late were principally with
Alviras. He would enquire how we were getting along, if we were get-
ting along all right. He has not eaten in my house during the year
1885.”
CHAPTER IX.
“MINNIE THE FAVORITE” TELLS HER STORY UNBLUSHINGLY.
MINNIE Snow, called for the prosecution, testified:
“I was married to Lorenzo Snow, in June, 1871, and I have four
children, the oldest is ten years, and the youngest is three months. I
live in the brick house, in Brigham City, Box Elder County, Utah Terri-
tory. My husband, Lorenzo Snow, my children and my hired girl live
with me. Mr. Snow has lived with me during the past year when he has
been at home. He has been absent I think, about seven months. He
went away about May and returned the middle of November. I suppose
he had been living there in November about a week when he was arrested
in the house. I have lived with him since I was married. Previous to
the present residence, we lived in the old homestead, and my husband
lived with me, that is all. It is one house with different apartments.
The ladies that have been mentioned lived in the other compartments,
they owned other portions of the house. I lived in the old homestead,
the same as I live now. There is no difference in the relations between
me and my husband ten years ago and now.”
Cross-examined:
“During 1885, when Mr. Snow has been in the city, he has taken his
meals at my house, and slept there, and has not been absent any night
unless he was absent from town. He has taken his meals at the brick
house with me and my family. He has an office in the brick house where
I live. No other person occupies the brick house except myself and
family; me, Mr. Snow, the children and hired girl. All his mail matter
and business papers come to the house; the brick house. He made his
home with me at that house when he was in town, exclusively. When
he goes to Church, it is from my home. I know all the ladies who have
testified. They are his wives. When he has been away from home they
were always at home, and I saw them almost daily. He did not go to
the houses’of any of these others that I am aware of.”
Re-direct:
“When he is in town, I know that he always sleeps at my house. I do
not know where he sleeps when he is not in town. I have never seen
anyone go to Church with him but me. I have never seen him go with
any of the other wives. I have seen him with the other wives, but oth-
32
HIS TEN WIVES.
ers have been with them on the streets; never alone. I have not seen him
at the houses of the other wives in 1885, and he has not been there, so far
as I know. He could not have been at either of the other houses all
night, because I have charge of his bedroom, and I know he is always
present at night when he is in town. I think he is seventy-two years
old. He has not to my knowledge publicly claimed the other women as
his wives. He has never spoken to me of them as his wives, to my
knowledge. Certainly they are his wives, and it was so understood in
the family during the past year.”
Re-cross-examined :
“I have charge of his clothing and the preparation he makes when he
leaves town. He usually takes the train and I take him to the depot.”
Dr. J. B. Carrington, a witness for the prosecution, testified:
“I reside, and have, during 1885, resided in Brigham City, and I am
somewhat acquainted with Lorenzo Snow. I am acquainted with a por-
tion of his wives. I know some of them. I am not the family physician,
but have been called into the family. I have known Mr. Snow about
two years, and have seen him frequently during the past year; saw him •
in Brigham City and at the Co-op. store. I suppose Adeline lives in what
is called the Cotton Thomas house. In 1885, 1 saw defendant in company
with Sarah. I think I have seen him out riding with Sarah and Minnie.
I took it to be Aunt Sarah I saw in the carriage. There was some one
else with him but I could not see who. I know Minnie, but I do not
think it was she. I think Aunt Harriet was in the carriage.”
Q. — “State, if in 1885, you heard defendant preach in the Tabernacle,
on the subject of plural marriage V”
Objected to by defendant. Objection overruled and defendant ex-
cepted.
A.— “I think I have.”
This witness also stated that in February or March, 1885, he saw de-
fendant and Sarah sitting together, in the theatre, in the part of the
house usually occupied by the Snow family, and that he supposed they
were there in company.
Cross-examination :
“I have seen him in the brick in 1885. The house where Aunt Sarah
lives is called the old homestead, and is a large house with several
wings, nearly on the corner of the block. In 1885, 1 did not see him in
any of the houses, but saw him go in through the gate in front of the
old homestead, and come out through the gate several times, but did not
see him go into the house. I have seen him in the yard and saw him go
in and come out of the gate probably three or four times. I do not know
what made him go through that gate. I think it was in March that I
saw him out riding with Sarah and Harriet. I know them and can rec-
Minnie, the Preferred, and Her Child.
HIS TEN WIVES.
33
ognize them here. I saw him once in the theatre with Sarah, in the
evening some time in February. I did not see him go in. He was in-
side when I saw him. I don’t recollect seeing any other lady with him
except Sarah. I saw him go away, and when the people left he and she
got up and went out, and I thought they went out together. They did
not lock arms, but appeared to go out together.”
Mrs. Lorenzo Snow, Jr., a witness for the prosecution, testified:
“I know defendant, who has been mentioned as the Apostle, and I
know these ladies as his wives. I am the wife of Lorenzo Snow, Jr., and
he is a son of Apostle Snow. I live in Brigham City, two blocks south
of the Co-op. in a house with my husband. I visit around among these
ladies, but not much in 1885. The defendant has been away during the
year. It was about Spring when he left, and he has been home probably
about two weeks this winter. He had been away six or seven months. I
have not met him anywhere in 1885. I have seen him at my house, no-
where else, and I met him at my house the fore-part of the year. I have
met him during the past ten years at the house of some of these
ladies — frequently at my sister Minnie’s, and I think I have seen him
within the past few years at Sarah Snow’s. I have not seen him within
the past few years at either of the other houses.”
[The Court here directed all the testimony of this witness relating to
prior years to be stricken out.]
John F. Olson, a witness for the prosecution, testified:
‘‘I live in Brigham City, and work for Brother Lorenzo Snow— milk
<?ows, chop wood, etc. I live in my own house. I carry flour, coal, etc., to the
houses of the wives, and supplies generally. Mr. Snow stays at the
brick house. I have seen him walking to the big adobe house. He does not
live there. Saw him go up to the adobe house last Spring. He went
away in March. I may have seen him walking to the adobe house twice.
I don’t know where he went. He went up to the house. The ladies have
driven out themselves and he told me to drive them out. Two went
riding together. Sometimes they drive themselves, and sometimes I
drive.
Cross-examined:
“I don’t know that I have seen Mr. Snow go into the adobe house in
1885. I cannot remember that. I saw him go there in 1884 three times.”
Franklin H. Snow, a witness for the prosecution, testified:
“I live in Brigham City, in the old homestead. I know Lorenzo Snow,
and I suppose he lives at the brick house most of the time. I cannot say
where he lives the rest of the time; he is generally off on business a good
deal, and I cannot say where he lives when he is away from the brick
house. I have seen him at the big house. He only sleeps at the brick
house. I have seen him at the old homestead this year. I have seen him at
34
HIS TEN WIVES.
my mother’s, Harriet Snow’s once or twice early in the Spring, but .not
since he returned in the Fall. It might have been eight months ago,
something like that. He called and remained a short time. I haven’t
seen him there but two or three times at the most the past year. Sarah
and Eleanor also lived in the old homestead. I have not seen him call
on either of them the past year. I can’t be positive, but I think I seen
him going to the meeting house with mother. In going to the meeting
house he sometimes rides and sometimes walks, I have not seen him
with either of the wives this year. I was in the Marshal’s office waiting
to be examined as a witness at the examination before the Commission-
er, and remember an introduction to Mr. Peery. Defendant introduced
Harriet and Sarah as his wives to Mr. Peery, while I was waiting to be
called as a witness, about the 21st of Nevember, 1885.”
Cross-examined:
“The words of the introduction were, * Mr. Peery, this is my wife Har-
riet.’ ‘ Mr. Peery, this is my wife Sarah.’ Saw him at my mother’s two
or three times at the outside in 1885. One occasion was when there was
a sociable there, and a number of people present. This is one of the oc-
casions I referred to in my direct testimony. I have no distinct recol-
lection in regard to any other occasion. He just called in, sometimes to
see me on business or something of that sort. I am at present engaged
merchandizing, and he has called at the house sometimes to see about
that. I have known him to call at other times than the evening the
crowd was there. I know he did not stay there all night. I have not, in
1885, seen him driving with any ^ife except Minnie, who lives in the
brick house. The old homestead is sixty or seventy yards from the brick
house. In going from the brick house to the Tabernacle or business part
of the town, he sometimes goes right through the lot to the front gate,
but mostly through the old homestead, and then at other times goes
around the block. This gate is right on the road in front of the old
homestead about the center of the building, in front, on the street. In
going to the Tabernacle, and that part of the town from the brick house,
the ordinary way is through that gate and past the adobe house. The
gate is about twenty feet from the house. It was quite common to ge
in and out of that gate on his way from the brick house.”
David H. Peery, a witness for the prosecution, testified:
“I know the defendant, and was introduced to two of his wives in the
Marshal’s office. I do not remember the form of the introduction. We
shook hands. He always spoke of these ladies as his wives, and I thought
he had three or four, but have since learned there are seven. I under-
stand that from him. Ogden, where the preliminary examination was
held, is about twenty miles from Brigham City.”
Miss Emma Josephson, a witness for the prosecution, testified:
HIS TEN WIVES.
35
“I have lived in Brigham City ever since I can remember, until I came
to Ogden last March. I lived in Brigham City with Mr. Keck, three
blocks north of the Post Office, and before coming here in March I lived
at Mr. Allen’s. I know defendant and some of the women who appeared
here as wives. I have worked for Harriet, Adeline and Sarah three
years. I worked for Harriet a year ago last July. I have seen defendant
in Brigham City in 1885, in a carriage with Minnie; I don’t think at any
other time. I have seen him pass the old homestead, but never in the
house. I don’t think I have seen him at any other place during the
time you speak of. I last saw him at the old homestead sometime last
winter, since the first of January. He was alone, going out through the
gate, which is eight or ten yards from the house, and directly in front of
it.”
Cross-examined:
“This is a gate on the road to the brick house, and I have seen persons
going in and coming out through that gate on the way to the brick
house. The gate is on the street, and in going from the brick house to
the south part of the town they go through that gate.”
Lucius Snow, a witness for the prosecutin, testified:
“I am a son of Lorenzo Snow, and Harriet is my mother. I live about
two miles north of Brigham City on the main road. I have seen defen-
dant in Brigham City in 1885. I cannot remember that I have seen him
anywhere except on the street. I heard him introduce my mother and
Sarah to Mr. Peery, in the Marshal’s office. They were subpoenaed here
before the United States Commissioner. He said, ‘ Brother Peery, this is
Sarah, my wife.’ ‘ Brother Peery, this is Harriet, my wife.”
CHAPTER X.
HOW THE UNITED STATES OFFICERS MADE THE ARREST.
OSCAR Vandercook, a witness for the prosecution, testified:
“I am a United States Deputy Marshal, and had charge of the
party that arrested the defendant for unlawful cohabitation, on the 20th
of November, 1885, in Brigham City, in his house in the central part of
the city. There was a little trap door underneath the carpet, and under
that door a little apartment, perhaps four feeT high by eight feet square,
and back of that there was another apartment, and it was in that we
found him. Previous to finding him we called on him to give himself
up. We had reason to believe he was there, and when we came to the
door of the apartment where he was found, we asked him to come out,
but he did not come until we called twice, and made preparations to
break down the door as a last resort. I had made inquiries of Minnie
Snow before discovering the trap door, as to whether he was there. We
had previously made a thorough search of the house from garret to cel-
lar, going through it room by room. I saw perhaps thirteen rooms.
I think Minnie Snow was with us most of the time. She did not point
out where he was. We noticed the carpet was ripped, and underneath
it found this trap door. When I called to him to come out the second
time, he said, ‘ All right, I am coming out; ’ and when he came out he
says, ‘ That is all right, boys, you have done your duty, come and take
a drink with me,’ or something to that effect.”
Cross-examined:
“This was in the brick house just opposite the Co-op.”
C. J. Corey, a witness for the prosecution, testified:
This witness produced a diagram of the premises, and explained it to
the Jury, showing in substance that the brick house is on the north end
of the block, opposite the Co-op. store, and on an east and west street,
passing along the north end of the block. The old homestead is on the
east side of the same block, fronting east on a north and south street,
and the Tabernacle is further south on the same street. The block was
fenced around, some parts of it with a high stone wall about seven feet
high. Between the brick house and the old homestead is a fence with a
gate, and by passing through this gate persons can go from one house to
the other without coming out on either street. Each house has a gate
HIS TEN WIVES.
37
in front, and to go from one house to the other by the street, one would
pass around the northeast corner of the block. The witness also testified
that a person standing either on the street in front of the brick house,
or on the street in front of the old homestead, while he could see the
house he was in front of could not see the ground between the houses on
account of the outside and inside fences he described. Plat put in evi-
dence.
Cross-examined:
“I made the diagram at our store in this city, where I live. It is made
from recollection and is not drawn on any exact scale. I lived in Brig-
ham City between seven and eight years and left there in February,
1883. I observed the premises last Spring, in March or April, in passing
by. I took more notice of these places than of others.”
The prosecution then rested.
CHAPTER XI.
FLIMSY TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE.
SARAH Snow, a witness for defendant, testified:
“There is in Brigham City a Court House Hall used as a theatre. I
have sometimes gone there, but only two or three times in the last two
years. I did not go to the theatre in March or April, 1885, with Mr.
Snow, or return from there in his company. I was in the theatre but
I was at one end of the house and he at the other end. I am hard of
hearing, and when I go, sit in a chair in the aisle in front of the stage. I
have not sat back in the high seats with the family for two years. Dur-
ing the year 1885 I have not gone with defendant to the theatre or sat
with him there. The stage is at one end of the building, and the seats
where Mr. Snow sits are at the other end. From where I sit to where he
sits is as far as across this Court-room. I do not remember of seeing
Mr. Snow at the theatre in 1885. I do not remember of riding out with
Mr. Snow and Harriet in February or March, 1885. I did not do so at any
time in 1885. Olsen, the hired man, drives the carriage.”
Cross-examined:
“I did not sit with the family in the theatre. The family sit on the
high seats in the back part of the house and the stage is at the other end.
I believe the family sit in chairs, and no one else sits in those high seats
— all the family sits there, they have seats reserved. This row of seats is
reserved for the Apostle’s family. I haven’t attended the theatre but once
in 1885. I cannot tell who was there at that time. I take my seat and do
not see the others. Mr. Snow hardly ever attends the theatre now. I
have not seen him there in 1885. The ladies and their children occupy
the seats reserved for the family.”
Re-direct:
“There are high seats for all the people that are willing to pay for re-
serving them— the higher seats are higher priced and lots others occupy
the chairs beside the family.”
Re-cross-examination :
“The family, which includes the wives and children, usually occupy
these chairs.”
P. F. Madison, a witness for defendant, testified:
“I have lived in Brigham City over twenty- five years; I am at present
Probate Judge of Box Elder County, and I have been Recorder of Deeds.
HIS TEN WIVES.
39
My office is in the Court House. I live one block north of the brick house
and in going to the Court House I passed within half the width of a
street of the brick house. In going to the Court House I pass on East
and West Streets in front of the brick house, and at the corner of the
block come to Main Street which runs north and south, and often pass
south down this street in front of the old homestead. I have known Mr.
Snow ever since I went to Brigham City. I have business connections
with him and see him quite frequently; sometimes call to see him at the
brick house, since he moved his residence there; I find him there when
he is in town. I know where the old homestead, and the two other
houses, one of which is known as the Cotton Thomas house are; I have
never found him at any of these other houses in 1885— no other house
than the brick house. I cannot say how frequently I have called, but
my business was such that I had occasion to call more frequently than
most people. I could not say whether it would be once a week or once
in two weeks. I have not found him at any of these houses except the
brick house in 1885, and have not gone to any of the other houses to find
him there. I ought to be acquainted with the premises for I have been
right around them for twenty-five years. I have here a plat, a rough
draft, not drawn on any exact scales, but I can show you the situation
approximately.” The witness here explained with the plat the situation
of the premises. The location of the brick house and homestead on the
plat did n(!>t differ materially from fhat given by the witness Corey. The
witness explained that there is a path from the gate in front of the old
homestead leading north of that house, and also one leading around the
south and west sides of the building and these paths unite northwester-
ly of the building, and thence run northerly through a gate to the brick
house; that in going to or coming from the southerly part of town, to
and from the brick house, the way by this gate and path was about half
a block nearer than to go around by the streets, and was quite common-
ly taken.
The defendant here put in deeds from the defendant to each of the
wives named in the indictment, dated in 1874, and some recorded in that
year, but most of them recorded in 1882, though all bore an endorsement
in the handwriting of the Recorder in 1874 (since deceased) that they
were filed for record in 1874. The witness identified the premises con-
veyed to each, as the premises occupied by each for several years, and the
deeds showed that the old homestead was conveyed by wings in parts to
those who had severally occupied the parts conveyed. The witness also
testified that on the north side of the brick house the street fence was a
picket fence; that on the front of the old homestead the old wall had
been torn down to within two feet of the ground and a picket fence put
on top of it. That other parts of the wall brilt many years ago had
40
HIS TEN WIVES.
partly fallen clown, and that from the street in front of the brick house
a person going from one house to the other could be seen in both lots.
Cross-examined :
“I am a stockholder with defendant in the Co-op. store and in the
Grist Mill. Before defendant moved to the brick house he lived in the
old homestead. There is a stone wall between the brick house premises
and the old homestead premises, also on the west side of the block as far
as the stable. These women are reputed to be his wives in Brigham
City.”
Re-direct :
“ The repute in Brigham City is, that he has only lived with one wife
since he moved to the brick house.”
H. E. Bowring, a witness for the defense, testified:
“I have lived in Brigham City nearly nine years, and I know defend-
ant and live about two blocks from him. I pass by the brick house and
adobe house generally five or six times every day. My place of business
is on the northeast corner of the same block. When defendant is in town
I see him every day and sometimes two or three times a day. Some-
times see him with friends in the house, and in summer out on the
lawn, sometimes in the Co-op. store and out on the street, but more fre-
quently in the house— in the brick house. I have not seen him at the
old homestead in 1885. I have not seen him at the house where Adeline
or Phoebe live in 1885. I think I ha*e been at the brick house four or
five times in 1885, and found defendant there.”
Cross-examined:
“ I think Mr. Snow has been absent the greater part of the time in
1885.- It was early in the summer when he went away and I did not see
him again until November. He is superintendent of the Co-op. store,
and has some interest in the grist mill, and is one of the Apostles of the
Church. He has an office in the brick house. In 1885, Sarah, Eleanor
and Harriet lived in the old homestead, and they were reputed to be Mr.
Snow’s wives, 1885, in Brigham City.”
Re-direct:
“There are no reputes that he lived with these women, but to the con-
trary.”
Re-cross-examination :
“ The general repute is they are his wives and he supports them, but
does not live with them.”
No further or other evidence was given.
CHAPTER XII.
THIS ended the testimony. It was now early afternoon of the last day
of the dying year, 1885. A silence deep and oppressive fora few mo-
ments settled on the scene. It was broken by the Court, who enquired
as to the order of addresses of counsel, warned the officers to enforce
perfect order in the court room, reminded the vast concourse of specta-
tors that the continued courtesy of the Court, permitting them to be
present in such crowds in aisles, passage and hallway, depended on
their perfect decorum, and directed the argument to begin.
The prosecution opened amidst the most perfect order, with the follow-
ing
SPEECH OF V. BIERBOWER,
Assistant United States District Attorney, delivered in a calm, dignified
manner, and listened to with the most earnest attention by Court,
counsel, accused, jurors and spectators:
May it please the court:
Gentlemen of the Jury: — I congratulate you upon the speedy ter-
mination of this important trial. It has fallen to your lot to sit in
judgment upon what is universally regarded as the most important
criminal trial ever conducted in Utah Territory. It is important, first,
. because of the exalted position of the defendant, being one of the Twelve
Apostles of the Mormon Church, and second, because of the fact that
this is the first trial, under what is known as the Edmunds Law, where
the offense of Unlawful Cohabitation is segregated, that is, the time cov-
ered by this offence is divided. Instead, therefore, of one indictment
covering the offense for a period of three years, I have three indictments
against him, one for each year, and you are empanelled to try him for
the offense covered by the year 1885. This indictment is drawn under
the act of Congress of March 22nd, 1882, known here as the Edmunds
Law, and charges substantially that Lorenzo Snow, at the County of
Box Elder, in Utah Territory, on the first day of January, 1884, and on
divers other days and continuously between said last named day and
the thirty-first day of December of the same year, did unlawfully “ live
and 'cohabit ” with Adeline Snow, Sarah Snow, Harriet Snow, Eleanor
Snow, Mary H. Snow, Phoebe W. Snow and Minnie Jensen Snow as his
wives. For the purposes of this case it is admitted in open Court that
the defendant is married to the seven women named and that he has
never been divorced, nor legally separated from either of them. It also
appeared in evidence, and is not disputed, that Charlotte and Caroline,
two other wives, are dead, and that one other, whose name the witnesses
have obliterated, deserted him. It is also admitted that Adeline is his
first wife and Minnie is the last, but by no means least, as will subse-
42
HIS TEN WIVES.
quently appear. It further appears undisputed that these seven wives
all live in Brigham City, that Adeline and Phoebe live in what is called
the Cotton Thomas house, that Sarah, Harriet and Eleanor live in the old
homestead, that Mary lives alone and Minnie lives in what is called the
Minnie Palace, being the new ‘ brick residence, which the defendant
claims is his only home. It is also conceded that the defendant was
married to these different women at periods ranging from 1845, at Nau-
voo, Illinois, to 1873, in Utah; that he married two of them at one time;
anil that he lived in the same house, under the same roof and at the same
table continuously with all of them, until about four years ago. It is
admitted that he had a large family of children by each of these wives,
and it is conceded that to-day he maintains and provides for all of these
women as a husband provides for a household. The prosecution main-
tains, and offered evidence to prove, that there is no substantial change
in the relationship of husband and wife between these parties since the
passage of the Edmunds Law. We have offered evidence to show that
the parties themselves consider their relations unchanged; that the de-
fendant continues his regular visits to the various households; that he
has gone out in public, both walking and riding, with different wives at
different times; that he has visited friends at different times and with
different wives; and that he introduced them to the public as his wives
even up to the very day this trial began. These facts are virtually con-
ceded upon both sides and we now pass from this to the disputed ground.
The defendant claims that he is not amenable to the Edmunds Law, and
that about four years ago, he changed his mode of life in such a way as
exempted him from its provisions. He claims that about the time of
the passage of this law he separated from his various wives; that he
deeded over to them the respective properties upon which they severally
reside; that he built a new house into which he moved with Minnie, the
youngest wife, and that he has made this house his only home; that he
gets his mail there and has his office there and that he “lives and co-
habits” there and nowhere else. In the matter of general repute in the
community as to whether they were man and wife, or more properly ■
speaking man and wives, the evidence before you was conflicting — the
Gentile witnesses maintaining they were reputed as man and wife and
the Mormons maintaining the theory of separation. Here then we have
an outline of the facts of this case as presented to you. Of course I have
omitted many minor details which go to make up the entirety of this
offence. Those details, with which you are familiar, added to this gen-
eral outline, give you a full, free, fair and honest presentation of the
case at bar. I now propose to leave this branch of the case temporarily
and direct your attention for a few moments to the law under which
this indictment was found and incidentally to a history of the law in
this Territory relating to polygamy.
If a stranger to Utah should walk into this court room to-day and look
upon this vast throng of people and observe the deep interest in this
trial, he would naturally ask for an explanation. His attention would
be called to this venerable defendant, now in his seventy-third year, sur-
rounded with his seven wives, the oldest three-score and ten and the
youngest less than thirty, bearing a two months old child in her arms,
and he would be told this venerable man is now on trial for unlawful
cohabitation— that is for living and cohabiting with more than one wo-
man as his wife, in violation of a law of Congress. This naturally sug-
gests other questions and other answers, and this brings me to a discus-
HIS TEN WIVES.
43
sion of the law and how it came to be upon the statutes. The primary
object aimed at by the Edmunds Law, was the destruction of polygamy
in the Territories. Polygamy was a crime at the common law. Bigamy,
meaning two wives, and Polygamy, meaning many wives, are used syn-
onymously, as distinguished from Monogamy, one wife. This crime of
polygamy is made a capital crime in some, and punished very severely,
in other parts of Europe. In France, however, the law merely makes the
marriage unlawful without attaching any penalty. The Athenians at
one time permitted polygamy, but it was not tolerated in ancient
Greece. It was forbidden by the Romans and this prohibition was in-
serted in the Institutes of Justinian. It may be regarded as exclusively
the feature of Asiatic and African manners and half civilized life and,
among all civilized nations, is regarded as incompatible with civiliza-
tion, refinement or domestic happiness. In the states it is punished by
imprisonment in the penitentiary and in North Carolina, by the statutes
of 1800, it was punishable with death. All law writers agree that it
was prohibited at common law.
Many years ago in the United States a new religion was founded by
Joseph Smith, He claimed certain revelations from God— among these
revelations was one that his followers should practice polygamy. This
church is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or as
we call it here in Utah, The Mormon Church. Its members increased
with marvellous rapidity in Illinois and Missouri, from whence they
were subsequently driven out by an infuriated people. In 1847 the Mor-
mons concentrated their people and settled in Utah, which at that time
belonged to Mexico. In Mexico, which inherited her laws from' Spain,
polygamy then as now was prohibited by law. In 1848 by the Guadalupe
Hidalgo treaty, Utah was ceded to the United States and first came with-
in its jurisdiction. In 1850 Congress organized the Territory of Utah
and Section 17 of the Organic Act extended the common law over Utah
Territory. The Supreme Court of this Territory in the first case that
came before it, that of the People vs. Green in 1st Utah, p. 11, affirmed the
doctrine that the common law was in force in this Territory. Now let
us assume that the Mormons, driven from the States by an infuriated
people, came to Utah in 1847 to practice polygamy as one of the cardinal
doctrines of their church faith. If that be true, then they came into a
foreign country which prohibited polygamy. The very next year, 1848,
by a singular coincidence they came within the jurisdiction which the
United States exercised over the Territories. In the Territories at that
time the common law prevailed. That common law prohibited polyg-
amy. Three years later, in 1850, the Organic Act creating Utah Terri-
tory emphasized and publicly proclaimed that th’e common law extend-
ed over Utah. From this review you will observe that there never has
been a day, or even an hour, when polygamy was recognized in this
country by law. But right here in this connection I call your attention
to a matter of history. While we have no authentic information as to
the exact time when the revelation concerning plural marriage was re-
ceived from God, we do know, as a matter of history, that it was first
promulgated on August 29th, 1852. This public promulgation, you will
observe, was made two years after Congress, through the Organic Act,
proclaimed that the common law extended over Utah, and by this means
the world knew that the common law prohibited polygamy.
It is my purpose in this connection to show you how the Mormons fled
from the law in the States only to bid defiance to that same law in the
44
HIS TEN WIVES.
Territories. The next legislation of Congress on the subject of polyg-
amy was the act of July 1st, 1862. This was merely a reiteration of the
common law, but a definite penalty was fixed for those who should vio-
late the law. Here was a clear, distinct and unequivocal warning to the
Mormons that polygamy was unlawful. To any other people such a
warning was unnecessary. Although our country at that time was
rocked by the throes and convulsions of civil war and all the energies of
our people and of Congress were directed towards the preservation of the
Nation from armed opposition, still, even under that pressing emergen-
cy, Congress turned from the Nation’s battlefields long enough to pass
an unmistakable law against polygamy. Even at that day this infa-
mous polygamous cancer was slowly and insidiously eating its way
into the vitals of the Nation; and all good people wished, and many be-
lieved, that the law of 1862 would put an end to its disgraceful en-
croachments.
I now direct your attention to another feature of this case. The Mor-
mons have always contended, qnd still insist, that Congress has no right
to pass any law which interferes with their religion. In support of this
position they direct our attention to the Constitution of the United
States which says “ Congress shall make no law respecting an estab-
lishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Here in
Utah we have more constitutional lawyers to the square inch than any
place on the globe. Every deacon, elder, teacher, bishop and apostle is a
constitutional lawyer, and these teach their people constitutional law
until the whole Mormon people have become a nation of constitutional
lawyers. These people have heretofore insisted, and, strange as it may
appear, thousands of them still insist, that the law prohibiting the prac-
tice of polygamy is unconstitutional, and in violation of the section
which I first quoted to you. So firmly were many of the Mormon leaders
convinced of this fact that they offered to help* make up a case for the
Supreme Court of the United States in order to test the matter. Here
was a conflict going on for nearly thirty years between the people of the
United States on the one side, insisting that polygamy was wrong and
in violation of law, and the Mormons, on the other side, insisting that
polygamy was part of their religion and they had a right to practice it.
It is true the Supreme Court of the Territory had decided the law
against the Mormons, but they were not satisfied and insisted that the
Court of the last resort should pass upon the question. Accordingly the
case of the United States vs. Reynolds, found in the 98th U. S. p. 145, was
submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States. It fairly raised
the one vital question in which all were interested. Mormons and Gen-
tiles waited for that decision as a solution of the Mormon problem, and
all believed that when once this hitherto vexed question should be final-
ly settled, that Utah, clothed in the panoply of law, would march for-
ward upon a career of uninterrupted progress. So in October 1878 the
Supreme Court in the Reynolds case referred to, decided in language so
plain that he who runs may read that— “ A party’s religious belief can-
not be accepted as a justification for committing an overt act made
criminal by the laws of the land.” Here then we supposed the end was
reached. The Court of last resort had spoken and all Utah looked for-
ward in the vain hope of brighter and happier days. Two years later
the same Court in the case of the United States vs. Miles, found in 103
U. S. p. 304, reaffimed the Reynolds case, and then as these people en-
tered upon the decade of 1880, out of this darkness and bon-
HIS TEN WIVES.
45
dage they could see, now that the law was so clearly settled, the light
of Utah’s millennium beginning to dawn on the horizon. But never be-
fore were a people doomed to a more bitter disappointment. The Amer-
ican people had a right to believe that the opinion of the Supreme Court
in the Reynolds case would end polygamy in Utah and the other Terri-
tories. But scarcely had that opinion been promulgated among the
Mormons, until they set to work deliberately and defiantly to evade it.
That conflict, which many believed and all hoped had been virtually set-
tled by that decision, was now to be continued. Heretofore the conflict
had been open, defiant and courageous— now it was to be renewed on
their part secretly, clandestinely and cowardly. True they continued
openly their professions, but in secret and in silence put their profes-
sions into practice. The law of the land now stood in direct conflict
with the law of the church. To obey one law was to disobey the other.
Under the teaching of their leader they decided to obey the law of
the church. In this condition of affairs the American people once
more appealed to Congress to strengthen our laws and give power to our
courts. Congress was evidently reluctant to pass harsh measures. That
body doubtless remembered that less than a generation ago Utah was a
wilderness; that hardy pioneers, although blinded by religious fanati-
cism, had braved the dangers of frontier life and made this wilderness
to bloom and blossom like the rose. They realized the difficulties in the
way of a peaceful solution of this vexed question. They realized the
fact that here in these beautiful valleys a generation had grown up in
the honest belief that polygamy was of divine origin — that all believed
in it, most of them practiced it, that families had grown up under it
and that the circle of its influence was constantly widening. Thus we
find the situation of Utah in the spring of 1882, when Congress passed
the Edmunds Law. A brief outline of this law, the last act of Congress
relating to this subject, may not come amiss.
The first section prohibits bigamy and polygamy and provides a fine
not exceeding $500, and imprisonment in the Penitentiary not exceed- *
ing five years for those who violate this law.
The third section prevents cohabitation with more than one woman
and provides a penalty of not more than $300 fine, and imprisonment
in the Penitentiary not more than six months. Under this section the
defendant is now on trial— charged with unlawful cohabitation with his
seven wives.
The fifth section provides that no one who believes in polygamy shall
serve on juries in such cases.
The sixth section provides that those who take an oath renouncing
polygamy may apply to the President for pardon.
The seventh section legitimizes all legitimate children born prior to
the first day of January. 1883.
The eighth section provides that no polygamist shall vote or hold of-
fice in the Territory. The other sections are immaterial in this action.
Now, let it be borne in mind, that offences under this law, whether
polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, are barred by the statute of limita-
tion within three years. When this lawr was passed — March 22d, 1882—
it fell upon Utah like a clap of thunder out of a clear sky. Up to this
time many of the polygamous families dwelt in one household and un-
der one roof. Most of these people felt secure from prosecutions for
polygamy, for their offense was barred by the statute of limitations.
New marriages were consummated in secresy and, while all knew that
46
HIS TEN WIVES.
polygamous marriages were constantly going oil around us, yet no evi-
dence of such marriages could be produced— except in a few isolated
cases. Therefore, the Courts determined to strike down the polygamous
household. It was evidently the intention of the Edmunds Law, not
only to put an end to polygamy, but to wipe out those external appear-
ances that gave life and hope and strength to the principal crime. But
scarcely had the courts began the work of demolishing these polyga-
mous households before they were confronted with all the evasions and
subterfuges which the ingenuity of learned and skilled lawyers could
suggest. First we were confronted with a defective jury system allow-
ing only 200 jurors — half Mormon and half Gentile— and scarcely had
we got started before the panel was exhausted. Then the Courts issued
an open venire, and we followed that question into the Supreme Court
of the United States in the Clawson case, and again the court of last re-
sort sustained us. It appears to a certain extent to be the practice among
the Mormons that when a wife ceases child bearing she goes into a par-
tial retirement. This fact was established in this very trial upon the
testimony of the fourth wife Harriett. So, when we first began these
prosecutions for unlawful cohabitation the defendants claimed immu-
nity on the ground that they had ceased sexual intercourse, but we fol-
lowed that question into the Supreme Court of the United States in the
Cannon case, and again the Court of last resort sustained us and held
that that was not a defence. Four times within the past seven years
have these questions in regard to polygamy and unlawful cohabitation
been decided by the Supreme Tribunal of our land. The law in relation
to them has been so clearly, so distinctly, so emphatically declared, that
with the great mass of the American people forbearance has ceased to be
a virtue. This conflict, extending over a period of nearly forty years,'
has reached that point where one of two things must be done— either
polygamy must go or Congress must close our Courts. I now pass from
these matters, trusting that this review of history may throw some light
•on your deliberations in this case.
We will now return to the disputed ground. We insist on the part of
the prosecution that this defendant is guilty of uplawful cohabitation
with his seven wives as the Courts construe that law. On the other
hand this defendant, by his formidable array of counsel, claims that
since the passage of the Edmunds Law he has been living strictly with-
in the law, and, as we differ so widely, you must decide between us.
With your recollection of the details of the evidence I submit whether
we have not shown such a state of facts as convinces you that this de-
fendant lives and cohabits with these women, in the relationship of hus-
band and wife, as much so to-day as he did at any former period of his
life. We have first shown to the jury that they lived together, some of
them for forty years, and have never been divorced nor legally separated.
In fact, we know that these marriages are for time and eternity, as all
the wives testified. We have shown that during all this period of time
they lived together as man and wife, and With each wife there was
raised a large family of children. We have shown that during all this
period they continually walked, talked and acted as husband and wife
and called each other husband and wife. We have proven that in all
their intercourse with each other they treated each other as husband and
wife, and that this relationship was observed by their friends and neigh-
bors and was flaunted in the face of the world. In their dealings with
the world it was as husband and wife, as distinguished from what
HIS TEN WIVES.
47
might be called a harem among eastern nations or be looked upon as li-
centious conduct elsewhere. He provided for their support, their food,
their clothing, their house and home, not as a divorced husband paying
unwilling tribute in the shape of alimony, but as a dutiful husband sup-
ports a loving and devoted family. He claims them, not as concubines,
nor as mistresses, but he claims them before the world as his wives.
Bear in mind that this story of their marital relation is told by those
who know it best — his own seven wives.
I have thus far directed your attention to what we claim on the part
of the prosecution has been proven. I now propose to direct your atten-
tion to what we need not prove in order to secure a conviction. I as-
sume that His Honor will charge this jury substantially as the courts
have charged other juries on the law of unlawful cohabitation. We
need not show to this jury that the defendant and his wives, or either
of them, ever occupied the same bed. We need not show that they, or either
of them, ever slept at the same room or ate at the same table, for these
are but instances in every married life. We need not show that they
ever had sexual intercourse, and probably could not, even if required
to do so, unless we were assisted by the famous “ knot hole brigade ” of
Salt Lake; and we need not even show that they dwelt under the same
roof. The only question in this case is— were they living in the habit
and repute of matrimony? Not were they so living in the same room, or
occupying the same bed, or dwelling in the same house. This offence is
complete, say the Courts, when a man, to all outward appearances, is
living or associating with more than one woman as his wives. If the
conduct of the defendant is such as to lead the public to believe that the
parties are living together as husband wife then the offence is complete.
CHAPTER XIII.
PLEA OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE HOARY APOSTLE.
HE defense began by a clear statement from Mr. Harkness followed
by a feeling address by F. S. Richards, Esq. These gentlemen relied
solely on the points that the evidence showed that Snow had not “ lived
with ” more than one woman during 1885 as his wife. They contended
that “ cohabit ” meant actual residence in the same house as husband
and wife. Their addresses when stripped of verbiage meant this and
nothing more. In the other cases against Snow this point was relied on
in the defense and the additional one that if the defendant had so lived,
the offense was but a continuous one.
The address of Judge Harkness was as follows:
The defendant is indicted under the third section of the act of Con-
gress, known as the Edmunds Law, which provides that “if any male
person in the Territory or other place over which the United States have
exclusive jurisdiction hereafter cohabits with more than one woman”
he shall be punished as therein provided. It is charged that the defend-
ant, during the year 1884, cohabited with more than one woman, and
your investigations are limited to the conduct of the defendant during
that year. The facts of the case as developed by the evidence lie in a
narrow compass and are briefly these: The defendant has seven wives
now living. He resides in Brigham City in this Territory. Upon a cer-
tain block in that city stand two houses; one known as the “old home-
stead,” under whose ample and hospitable roof the defendant, before the
passage of this law of Congress, resided with several of his wives. About
twenty rods distant separated from the old homestead by a substantial
fence through which there is a gateway, stands what is called the “brick
house.” This house is the home of the defendant where he resides with
one of his wives, Minnie Snow. He moved from the old homestead to
this house in May, 1882, as soon as the provisions of the Edmunds act be-
came known in Utah. There he has ever since made his home; his busi-
ness office is there; he receives his mail there; he eats, he sleeps, he
dwells there, and this was the fact throughout the whole of the year
1884. At the old homestead reside three of his wives, and the remaining
three reside in other parts of the town. These ladies own the property
on which they reside, conveyed to them by the defendant before the pas-
sage of the act. To all of them except Minnie, with whom he has ex-
clusively lived since May, 1882, he has been married for many years, to
some of them for over forty years. To Minnie he has been married
since 1871. They each have a family of children. The defendant is in
the 72d year of his age. All of these women are supported by the de-
fendant. They bear his name. The evidence shows conclusively that
Judge Powers.
V
HIS TEN WIVES.
49
the defendant did not, during the year 1884, nor has he since^May, 1882,
lived, dwelt, taken a meal, slept or made his home at any house, except
the “ brick house,” nor with any woman except Minnie Snow. On two
or three occasions only in 1884, he visited the old homestead; these visits
were made specially to see one of his daughters who was dangerously ill
having sustained by accident, a fracture of the skull; he and her mother
Sarah, having at the time of the injury gone to Pleasant Valley for her
and taken her home with them. The visits were made in the day time
and were not to exceed a half hour each in duration. On one occasion
in November, 1884, the defendant called with a carriage at the house of
Harriet Snow, one of the wives, took her and his sister Eliza to the house
of her son, a few miles from Brigham City; he proceeded to his farm
some distance further on; returning in an hour, he took Harriet and his
sister in the carriage and left them at their home in Brigham City.
Throughout this trip the carriage was driven by a man named Olsen,
with whom the defendant sat on the front seat, the mother and sister
sitting on the back seat.
In 1884, the 70th anniversary of the defendant’s birth was celebrated
in Brigham City. A banquet was given in a large hall, called the Court
House Hall. It was a public occasion and the people of city and vicini-
ty in general attended to tender their congratulations, and to testify the
high regard in which they held the defendant. At that banquet all
these ladies were present.
Evidence has been admitted of the general or public repute as to the
defendant’s manner of living, and the relation he bore to these women
during the year 1884, and it is all to the effect that it was generally un-
derstood, accepted and believed by the public that the defendant lived
and dwelt at the brick house with Minnie Snow exclusively; that
his home was there; that he had not during 1884, nor indeed since
1884, nor indeed since May 1882, lived or made his home at any other
place, or associated with any other woman as a husband associates with
his wife. There is no evidence that he held out or announced any other
woman during said time as his wife. There is no evidence of sexual in-
tercourse with any other woman. The defense could and would have
proved that there had been none during said time, nor since the passage
of the act, but the court has ruled such evidence inadmissable. We have
the right, therefore, to assume that except with Minnie Snow, whose
youngest child is three months old, no such intercourse has taken place.
Prior to the passage of the Edmunds Act, these women were all well
known to be the wives of the defendant; since that time he has obtained
no divorce from any of them in the courts; he has supported them and
their families in comfort, and he has been kind and considerate in his
treatment of them all. All of them are of advanced age except Minnie
Snow, who is now about thirty-five years of age.
These facts are established by indisputable evidence; indeed, there is
no conflict in the evidence as to any of them. The prosecution has
placed upon the stand all of these women, and has been permitted to
cross-examine them. Their testimony has been candid and straightfor-
ward without the slightest attempt at evasion or subterfuge.
The prosecution has also called the Deputy United States Marshal who
made the arrest of the defendant upon this charge, and he has testified
that the defendant was at the time concealed in a closet in the “ brick
house,” but upon being summoned came forth and delivered himself up
to the officer.
4
50
HIS TEN WIVES.
The grand jury has subdivided the alleged cohabitation of the defend-
ant into three distinct offenses,' one of which may be rightly said to em-
brace the year 1883, another the year 1884, and another the year 1885.
Upon the indictment for the year 1885 he has been already tried and
cpnvicted; he is now on trial before you on the indictment for the year
1884, and the third indictment yet remains to be tried.
Gentlemen of the jury, you are asked by the prosecution to convict the
defendant upon this evidence of the crime of unlawfully cohabiting dur-
ing the year 1884 with more than one woman. I claim that neither in
act nor intent is the defendant guilty of the offense charged against
him. Now in order to arrive at a just conclusion as to his guilt or inno-
cence, you should know and consider the circumstances in which he was
placed at the time. This law of Congress, enacted in March 1882, de-
clares that “ if any male person thereafter cohabits with more than one
woman ” he shall be punished as therein prescribed. What is the mean-
ing of this word “cohabit?” I do not speak of its present meaning, for
it has recently been defined by the Supreme Court of the United States
in the Cannon case. But what was the meaning of this word at the
time of the passage of the act, and during the year 1884, prior to its re-
cent definition by the Supreme Court? You will observe that Congress
does not attempt to define it. It is usual for the Legislature to define
more or less specifically the acts which constitute a crime, made punish-
able by law. Open any book of criminal statutes, and you will find that
murder, arson, robbery, and the long catalogue of statutory offenses are
defined with great particularity; the acts and intents which shall con-
stitute them are laid down with precision, so that all may know before-
hand the nature and character of the acts prohibited by lawr. But in
this law of Congress we have only the general unlimited term with no
attempt at a definition. Whoever “cohabits” shall be punished.
Was, then, this word “cohabit” so simple in signification, so readily
understood, that no definition was required? Would all men understand
it in the same sense? On the contrary we find it to be a word full of un-
certainty and ambiguity. It has one meaning in popular language, an-
other in technical language. As the chameleon changes its hue on
every object on which it rests, so this word changes its signification
with every subject to which it is applied. Chief Justice Zane, deliver-
ing the opinion of our Supreme Court in the case of the United States vs.
Musser, says it is a word of “ flexible ” signification, which is equivalent
to saying that it is a word of ambiguous meaning. No one will deny
that in popular use the idea of sexual intercourse is its essential ele-
ment. If either one of this jury were charged with cohabiting with a
woman, he would instantly understand that sexual intercourse was im-
plied by the charge. As uttered upon the popular tongue that is the
meaning. The learned Chancellor Walworth, of New York, repeatedly
held that sexual intercourse was also the proper legal meaning of the
word. Mr. Bishop, a distinguished law writer, differs from Chancellor
Walworth, and holds that the idea is not an essential element in the defi-
nition. The Supreme Court of Utah, after a long and exhaustive discus-
sion at the bar, and great consideration by the court, excluded from the
definition of the term, as used in this act, the idea of sexual intercourse.
This decision has received the high opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States, but not its unanimous approval, for two distinguished
members of the court, Justice Field and Justice Miller, dissent from the
opinion, and Justice Miller does not hesitate to say that he knows of no
HIS TEN WIVES.
51
instance in which, in a criminal statute, the word cohabitation has’ever
been used in any other sense than that of sexual intercourse.
Now, gentlemen, there is one fact which I wish to impress strongly
upon your minds, and which I beg that you will hold prominently before
you at every step in your investigation of this case. It is this: That the
decision of the Supreme Court of Utah, and the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States, defining this word cohabit, so far as they do
define it, were both rendered after the time mentioned in this indict-
ment; after the year 1884; after the defendant had committed the acts
here charged to be criminal. He had not the light of those decisions to
guide his conduct. Those acts were committed as charged at a time
when this word still floated on the waves of ambiguity and uncertianty
fluctuating with every subject to which it was applied, for the decision
of the Supreme Court of Utah was rendered in June, 1885, and the decis-
ion of the Supreme Court of the United States has just been announced.
But, gentlemen, ambiguous and uncertain as this word “ cohabit,”
then was in its ordinary applications it was peculiarly so in its applica-
tion to the conduct of the defendant and his co-religionists who were
living in polygamy. The courts have held that this law of Congress
was directed with direct reference to the system of polygamy as it existed
in Utah. Congress was aware that polygamy was sanctioned by the re-
ligious creed of the Mormons, that it was practiced here, and this legis-
lation was intended to suppress that practice.
For twenty years the law against polygamy, passed in 1862, had stood
among the laws of Congress, but the Government had taken no energet-
ic measures to enforce that law. Two or three convictions had been had
during that time. But the law had fallen practically into disuse, and
was almost a dead letter upon the statute book. There were many pol-
ygamists here in 1862, who had married their wives prior to the passage
of that law, and who were therefore unaffected by its provisions,
for criminal laws, (however it may be with definitions) can never be
ritroactive; and after the passage of that law7 many persons, encouraged
by the inaction and acquiescence of the Government, contracted polyga-
mous marriages, and not being prosecuted or molested by the Govern-
ment or its officials, the statute of limitations soon ran in their favor,
and so they were no longer liable to prosecution for polygamy. And
during all this time, and down to the passage of this Edmunds Law in
March 1882 there was no law against cohabitation; no law which for-
bade the association of the polygamous husband witli his wives. Polyg-
amy had been winked at and tacitly acquiesced in by the Government
until a large class of persons having gone into it, stood now protected
by the lapse of time and the bar of the statute of limitations. Numer-
ous families of children had been born in polygamy, and there being no
law prohibiting the utmost freedom of association, those families were
united together by all those unspeakable sympathies and affections
which bind the father to the child, the husband to the wife, the wife to
the husband, the children to their parents.
Upon this condition of things, upon a people so delicately and anamal-
ously situated there suddenly fell without warning, like the crash of
doom, the law of 1882. That law peremptorily prohibited under severe
penalties the cohabitation of any male person with more than oue wo-
man. What would be its effect upon the conduct and relations of the
polygamists of Utah? What w7hs the meaning of this word “cohabit ” as
applied to them?
52
HIS TEN WIVES.
It was in the first place plain enough that Congress did not intend to
absolve the polygamous father from any of the duties and responsibilities
which pertained to his relation as a father. For by the seventh section
of the act, the children of all polygamous marriages which had been sol-
emnized in accordance with the ceremonies of the Church of Latter-day
Saints are made legitimate — thus placing them upon the same plane
and clothing them with the same rights as the law bestows upon the
children of the legal marriage — the same right of inheritance— the same
right to call upon the father for education, for support, and for the dis-
charge of all those duties which the father owes to the child. So far
then as the polygamous father and his children are concerned, this law
did not sever nor attempt to sever the relations and the associations ex-
isting between them; by legalizing those relations they were made
closer and more intimate than before.
But as regards the father and the mother of those children thus made
legitimate, what was the effect of this law upon the relations existing
between them? It has been likened by Your Honor (addressing Judge
Powers) to a decree of divorce. The comparison is felicitous and strik-
ing, but still I may be permitted to say it is inadequate. Similar things
are never the same. True there is a separation in the one case as in the
other, but different in kind, in character and degree.
A divorce implies alienated affection, usually bitter resentment. The
love which once existed has been turned to hatred. The court may com-
pel by its decree the payment of alimony, but it is a forced contribution,
reluctantly given. How different the separation in the other case ! Here
there is no alienated affection; no bitter resentment. The affection
which once existed glows still in undiminished warmth. For this is the
mother of his childrsn, united to him by covenants, consecrated by a
common faith, and which they believed to be indissoluble in time and
eternity. The love of the father for his children, and for the mother of
his children, is as strong and as deep as before. This, at least, no law
can prohibit, no edict can annul. It exists by virtue of a higher law.
It is written by the finger of God himself upon the universal heart of
humanity.
Behold, then, the difficulty, the infinite difficulty of his position. The
law does not compel him to obtain a decree of divorce, nor is he com-
pelled to make or place on record any public declaration that she is no
longer his wife. Nor can he, without her consent, take away from her
his name. But it is his duty to support her, and her children — to edu-
cate and train them intellectually and morally to the extent of his abil-
ity. He must assist in caring for the family; he cannot throw the
whole burden upon her. He may, nay, he must, in the discharge of
those duties, visit the house where the mother and children reside, for
he cannot tear them from her arms. In sickness and in suffering, cold
must be the heart that could deny to her and to them the presence and
the sympathy of the father. All these things he may, nay, it is his im-
perative duty, to do, but nevertheless, says the statute, he must not co-
habit with her, or with more than one woman.
What, then, must he do to escape the condemnation of this law? Gen-
tlemen of the jury, what would you have done? Put yourselves in his
place. I appeal to you individually and personally. Go back to the
year 1884, the time laid in this indictment, and remember that the
meaning of this word “cohabit,” as used in the act of Congress, had not
then been fixed by judicial definition. You must define it for yourself.
HIS TEN WIVES.
53
You are to select from the multiplied meanings of this most ambiguous
term one by which your conduct shall be governed. You are no lawyer,
and if you ask the law its oracles are dumb, or give back dubious and
dissonant responses. Bewildered, groping in the midnight darkness,
what can you do? You find in ordinary language, in popular speech,
and with that you are familiar, that the word cohabit has a well under-
stood signification, and that is sexual intercourse. Suppose that in de-
fault of light from any other quarter, you adopt this meaning of the
word, and conform your conduct to it. You thenceforth cease sexual in-
tercourse with more than one woman. You do more. While you make
occasional visits, as in sickness, or when necessity requires it, in the dis-
charge of the duties you owe to your children, you thenceforth cease to
live, to sleep, to eat, to dwell, to make your home except at the one house
and with the one woman; if after all that you should be convicted and
punished because you had cohabited with more than one woman, what
would you think of the jury which convicted you? What would you
think of a jury which, taking a definition of this statute, unknown at
the time, arrived at by the courts after your alleged offense was commit-
ted, should make an expost facto application of that definition to your
past conduct, and punish you for not knowing and doing what it was
impossible for you at the time to know and to do?
And what would you think of a Grand Jury which, not content with
one indictment, should under such circumstances subdivide your past
conduct into three offenses in order to crush you under the load of accu-
mulated penalties and forfeitures? And yet that is this case. The de-
fendant upon the passage of the Edmunds law ceased to cohabit with
more than one woman in the only sense in which he could then under-
stand the term. Not only did he cease sexual intercourse, but while in
the discharge of the duties incumbent upon him, he visited on rare occa-
sions the houses where his other wives and their children resided; and
provided for their support, yet he thenceforth neither dwelt nor slept
nor ate nor made his home at any but the one house or with any woman
but Minnie Snow. The evidence only shows the two visits to his sick
daughter in 1884, the ride to Little Valley, where Sarah Snow and her
daughter were in the carriage with him and Olsen, and the birthday an-
niversary.
These women lived upon their separate property and there is no evi-
dence that during that time he introduced or announced or held them
out as his wives, or associated with but one as a husband associates with
his wife.
And yet you are asked by the prosecution to find him guilty. Can you
doit and preserve your self respect? Would such a verdict have any ten-
dency to make the law respected, or would it bring disgrace upon the
administration of justice?
You may convict him because he is a Mormon; because 3[ou are preju-
diced against him and his religion, but you cannot convict him upon
evidence, for there is no evidence to justify such a verdict.
But the attorney for the Government, feeling the weakness of his
cause, falls back in desperation upon the fact that at the time of Mr.
Snow’s arrest by the Marshal, he had attempted to conceal himself from
the officers in a closet or cellar in the brick house where he resides, and,
it is urged that this is equivalent to a confession of guilt, and in de-
fault of anything else you are expected to convict him on this. A word
as to that: Gentleman of the jury, you have been selected to sit in judg-
*
54 HIS TEN WIVES.
ment upon the defendant, and the manner of your selection is peculiar.
The law under which you are empanelled excludes from the jury box,
every man who believes as he does, and the prosecution will exclude by
peremptory challenge every man who is a member of his religious sect,
although he might say that he regards the laws of his country as of
higher obligation than any religious dogma and that he would try the
case impartially and decide it in accordance with the law and the evi-
dence. Practically every Mormon is banished from the jury box. In
this poor unfortunate land of Utah, which God has made so beautiful
and man has made so miserable, where party passion acting in combi-
nation with religious zeal has so embittered the prejudices and in-
flamed the animosities of men that reason is well nigh banished from
her throne, you have been summoned to this jury box from the ranks of
those who are believed to be arrayed in deadly hostility, to the sect of
which the defendant is a member. Naturally, gentlemen, inevitably a
jury so selected is regarded with deep distrust by the great body of his
co-religionists, ann it has gone abroad that before such a jury there is
no hope for the accused; that accusation is equivalent to a conviction.
Do you wonder, gentlemen, that under such circumstances, believing
that he could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in the courts, this de-
fendant concluded to avoid arrest if he could, and so concealed himself
where he was found by the officer? Can that fact be treated as a confes-
sion of guilt?
But, gentlemen, I do not forget that when you took your seats in that
jury box you said that you had no bias, no prejudice against the defend-
ant, either personally or on account of his religion, or for any cause
whatever, and with uplifted hand you called God to witness that you
would try him fairly and impartially, and a true verdict render accord-
ing to the law and the evidence. Do you remember those solemn
pledges? I remember them, and I for one am willing to believe that you
will keep those pledges. I do believe it from the bottom of my heart. I
believe you have the courage and manhood to do it. I believe that as
honorable men you will regard the manner of your selection as placing
you under the highest and most solemn obligations to banish from your
minds all prejudice, all passion, all party or religious rancor, to weigh
and consider this evidence impartially, to give him the benefit of every
doubt, to judge him in mercy and with Christian forbearance, remember-
ing the circumstances in which he was placed, the difficulties and per-
plexities with which he struggled, and that you will so acquit yourselves
in the delicate position in which you stand that your verdict in this im-
portant case shall command the approval of your own consciences and
the approbation of every lover of justice.
CHAPTER XIV.
BRILLIANT RHETORIC OF F. S. RICHARDS FOR SNOW.
MR. RICHARDS addressed the Jury as follows : The impression
seems to have gone forth in this community, that in trials of
this character the attorneys for the defense are wholly without hope of
obtaining an acquittal. A rumor of this kind may have come to the
ears of some of you. A report that the defense believes that you are
prejudiced, that you will misjudge the facts, and that this case was de-
cided and a verdict virtually rendered against this defendant before you
had heard one iota of the testimony; it is possible that you have been
told that counsel for the defense know that they cannot obtain for their
clients in these cases fair and impartial trials, and that they appear and
make argument simply to air their own rhetoric and vent their own ora-
tory. I-mention this rumor that I may for myself and my associates
absolutely and emphatically repudiate any such idea. In this jury box
are men with whom I have been acquainted for the greater part of a
score of years, my fellow citizens and fellow townsmen. With some of
you I have had professional and business relations, such as to create
trust and confidence; and for me to stand in this Court to-day, and be-
lieve you capable of entering the jury box with the deliberate and unal-
terable intention of convicting my client, would be to assert that I am a
believer in the idea of the total depravity of man. Gentlemen,
I am not so far gone in a distrust of mankind as that belief
would indicate. It is my duty— and one which I observe with pleasure,
to have faith in this jury— to think that when you held up your hands
to high Heaven and swore to be unbiased and fearless in the discharge
of your sacred trust, you meant exactly what you said, and that you will
take a pride in adhering strictly to your promise. Therefore, what I say
to you is not as the sounding brass and tinkling cymbal, but in the way
of reason and from the bright hope and firm conviction of my soul. I
believe that you will understand the facts of this case as I shall recall,
just as I understand them, and that you will consider them without fear,
without prejudice, without expediency, in the light of the law as it shall
be given to you from the bench.
The first thing which you should attempt to determine in every trial
of this character is: What are the elements which are essential to con-
stitute the offense with which the defendant is charged? And the sec-
ond point is: Are all of these necessary ingredients actually present in
credible evidence? Lorenzo Snow is charged with unlawful cohabitation
with more than one woman, during the period named in the indictment,
between the first day of January and the thirty-first day of December,
1884. Now, gentlemen, tnis peculiar offense, as it has been defined by
this Court, as it has been designated by the Supreme Court of Utah Ter-
ritory, and as it has been declared by the most exalted judicial tribunal
56
HIS TEN WIVES.
in this Republic, consists of two distinct and requisite elements. One of
these is the living of a man with more than one woman, and the other is
holding out of these women by him as his wives. And although the learn-
ed counsel for the Government may say to you in his closing argument, as
has already been asserted in this and similar cases, that the only fact
necessary to be proven is that the defendant has “lived a life which
would lead the public to believe that the ladies named were his wives,” I
ask you to eliminate any such unjust and fallacious idea frcm your
minds. Do not get any such foolish and wrongful impression as that
the prosecution, under any circumstances, can dispense with either one
of the necessary constituent elements of the offense, and then demand a
conviction at your hands. Gentlemen, my client might have been a
polygamist during the year 1884; he might have owned and acknowl-
edged that every woman with whom the indictment charges cohabita-
tion was his wife during the whole of that period; he might have de-
clared this relation publicly in the pulpit, in the streets of Brigham
City, or in the newspapers — all these things, even if proven— as they
most emphatically have not been— would not and could not under the
rulings of the Court constitute the unlawful cohabitation charged
against my client in this case. I desire to impress upon you that you
should not be misled by assertions of the character which I have just
controverted, and which might cause j-ou to render a verdict not in con-
formity with law or conscience. I maintain that I have expressed a cor-
rect view of the law and that nothing of a contrary nature will be given
to you from His Honor, w ho presides in this Court.
Gentlemen, it is not the simple, passive relation of polygamy which
Congress has declared against in the section of the law under which
this indictment is brought. Certain disabilities are imposed upon the
defendant, even for the status itself. He must neither vote, hold office,
nor perform jury duty during the existence of that status; but that he
should be subjected to punishment— that he should be tried, convicted*
fined and imprisoned. It is required that he should do much more than
remain passively in that relation. He must have lived with these wo-
men as a husband lives with his wife. In such cases as the one now on
trial, the manner of living constitutes the habit and repute of marriage.
What is the evidence of any habit and repute of living together as man
and wife, in this particular case against Lorenzo Snow? For that proof
wTe rely upon the testimony of witnesses for the prosecution; and let me
say, in passing, that the law will not permit counsel for the Government
to cast discredit. It is the testimony offered you by the prosecution
upon which you are requested to find a verdict of guilty, and the power
to impeach it or impugn it does not legally nor justly lie in the mouth of
counsel for the Government. He introduced these witnesses, and he is
irrevocably bound by their assertions. The fact is that these witnesses
have not been contradicted; the defense has made no effort to contro-
vert their testimony, and what is that testimony? All of these women,
except Minnie, with whom alone cohabitation is not denied, testified to
you positively and unequivocally that at no time during the year 1884
did they live with the defendant, or did the defendant live with them.
There is no doubt nor dispute regarding the truthfulness of their asser-
tions. If it had been possible to produce testimony of a contrary char-
acter, the proseoution wmild have introduced that other evidence. I
asked some of these ladies if they had lived with the defendant as hus-
band and wives during 1884, and they answered “no.” I then put the
HIS TEN WIVES.
57
question in its general sense: “Did the defendant live with you, during
1884, as a husband or otherwise?” and they answered, “he did not.” It
is proven to you beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did not once sleep
in any one of the residences of these ladies, that he never ate there, and,
gentlemen, there is no evidence before you that he even called at any
one of the houses except that of Sarah, at which he made two visits to
see a daughter, their child, who had suffered a serious injury of a frac-
tured skull by being thrown from a carriage. The attending physician
was present at these interviews, and testifies to the effect stated. Upon
one other occasion only he was in the company of Sarah, the mother of
the injured daughter, and that was when defendant and Sarah went to
Little Valley as soon as the accident was reported to them. They went
to find their child, to care for her and bring her to her mother’s home;
and upon their woful journey they travelled in the same conveyance.
Was there any crime in such a journey and in such visits of paternal so-
licitude? These are absolutely the only circumstances tending to show
that the defendant associated with Sarah as a husband, neighbor, ac-
quaintance, or in any other capacity; and yet it is upon the fact that
Lorenzo Snow was gentle and tender enough to perform this humane,
loving duty, that a demand for a conviction is partially based. On one
occasion he was in the company of Harriet during the year 1884. At a
time when defendant’s sister was visiting him, he and that lady rode in
a carriage driven by a hired man to the front of Harriet’s residence, and
without there alighting, Harriet came from the house and entered the
vehicle, riding upon the rear seat with Mr. Snow’s sister Eliza, while de-
fendant and the coachman occupied the front seat. They were driven
to the home of Sarah’s son, Lucius, at which place the two ladies alight-
ed and remained, while defendant went away immediately to visit his
farm, beyond the city. The carriage still bearing the defendant re-
turned in an hour, the two ladies were picked up and carried back to the
home of Harriet, which she entered and the defendant, again without
alighting, at once drove from the locality. This is his only living with
Harriet. But, seriously, is there any living together or holding out in
these two facts? Is there any unlawful association? Is there any reason
for the claim that this was cohabitation with either or both of the ladies
named? So far as the others are concerned, the other ladies mentioned
in the indictment, Adeline, Phoebe, Eleanor and Mary, there is not a par-
ticle of evidence that he had been seen in the company of either of them
during the year 1884, except on the occasion of the anniversary of his
70th birthday, wrhen he met some of them and a hundred other friends
and acquaintances in a public hall. Therefore, there are but five facts
upon which a conviction is demanded — five facts which I rehearse to you
and which I wish now to reiterate that you may not lose sight of them:
First, the brief and anxious journey of Mr. Snow in the same conveyance
with Sarah to the place where their daughter was lying with a fractured
skull; second and third, the two calls of the defendant at the house
where their dear daughter was upon a bed of illness — calls made in the
presence of the doctor, and which were for the obvious and undisputed
purpose of learning of the condition of his sick child; fourth, the ride
taken by my client in company with Harriet and two other persons to
the house of Harriet’s son; and fifth, the anniversary dinner eaten with
his hundred friends. And upon those bare facts, you, gentlemen of the
jury, are asked in this, a hall of justice, to render a verdict of guilty l
And of what? Of unlawful cohabitation; of having lived with these wo-
58
HIS TEN WIVES.
men as husbands live with wives, and of having held them out to the
world as his wives ! Gentlemen, the Supreme Court has held that unlaw-
ful cohabitation means these two things, and that without both of them
proven it cannot be maintained. I insist, and any reasonable man must
acknowledge, that neither of these essential elements has been estab-
lished.
At this point I desire to warn you against falling into a pitfall which
I fear may be opened for your feet. It has been suggested by counsel in
other prosecutions of a similar nature, and I have a right to anticipate
it in this case. I am compelled to advert to it before its utterance, as I
have no privilege of reply to the proscutor’s closing speech: It has been
very adroitly and significantly suggested that because my client did not
live with these women and perform his marital duties to them all alike,
he ought to be convicted of this offense because of his injustice and par-
tiality. Gentlemen, this is a monstrous idea. The law required my
client to live with not more than one wife, and because the prosecution
cannot prove that he has lived with more than one he is still to be con-
victed of the offense; and such absurdity and cruelty are justified as a
measure of public policy ! Gentlemen, as widely as the polbs are separa-
ted, you may differ from the defendant’s religious belief, from his mari-
tal methods, from his taste and conduct; you may coincide with an in-
genious but heartless theory heretofore advanced by the prosecution in
this court room, that this defendant’s separation from a portion of his
family was a desertion and neglect of some of his wives; that this con-
duct was unjust and even cruel to the women who were thus deprived
of his companipnship. But, gentlemen, that can have nothing to do
with your verdict. Did the defendant endeavor in good faith to obey
the law? You are not sworn to judge Lorenzo Snow for what he has not
done, but for what he has done; not for having failed to perform his
marital duties, but for having lived with these women as his wives. The
defense sets up the claim that Lorenzo Snow has obeyed the law. The
prosecution’s argument would lead you to say that if so he ought to be
convicted of a violation of the law, because a compliance with the law
would be an act of inhumanity. Further, my client is not on trial un-
der a charge of “religious fanaticism.” This community is not on
trial; nor is the Mormon church arraigned; but the sole point at which
all these circumstances and arguments center like the spokes at the
hub of a wheel, is this— simply this and nothing more: Did Lorenzo
Snow, during the year 1884, live with and hold out more than one wo-
man as a wife? Under the evidence only one answer can be given, and
that answer is “no.”
Of course, gentlemen of the jury, you naturally find some embarrass-
ment in thus repudiating an argument upon which the prosecution in
a similar case has laid so much stress. You have supposed, doubtless, as
I was taught, that the duty and aim of a public prosecutor was to stand
in the Temple of Justice, not clamoring for the blood or liberty of any
man, but to represent truthfully, impartially, fully to the jury all the
facts necessary for consideration in making up a just verdict. He should
endeavor to be as eager for justice to the man on trial as is the paid ad-
vocate of the defense. It has been my fortune to serve for some years as
a pdblic prosecutor, and in that capacity I have many times had the
honor of appearing in this court before the distinguished Judge who
was the predecessor of His Honor who sits upon this bench. But, gen-
tlemen, I assert— I trust with no unseemly pride— that I never forgot
HIS TEN WIVES.
59
the fact that I had no right to demand from any jury a verdict of guilty
unless my own brain and conscience united in saying that, if I were
acting as a juror in the case, I would feel bound by the facts to render
such a verdict. This is the test. Apply it to the vigorous counsel for
the Government. Will he stand here and say that if he had taken your
oath in the case now on trial, his conscience would uphold him in vot-
ing for a verdict of guilty? I am reminded of an instance which oc-
curred not more than one hundred years ago last Thursday, and not
more than one hundred miles from this court room. A certain adroit
and eloquent counsel for the Government, in a case very, very similar
to this, demanded most impressively the conviction of the defendant,
and a short time afterwards, while in conversation on the street, the
same gentleman spoke to this effect: “It is my firm belief that the man
on trial yesterday had honestly endeavored to obey the law, and had done
all that should be required of him.”
Gentlemen of the jury, you stand here probably in a position of higher
importance and holding a greater trust than the distinguished Judge or
the energetic prosecutor who represents the mightiest nation under
heaven. For you are here as a constitutional bulwark — the wall of de-
fense between my client, Lorenzo Snow, and the unheeding, ill-judging
clamor of millions of people demanding his conviction. Do not mistake
the gravity of this occasion, nor of your position. To my client, your
verdict means either the retention or sacrifice of all that makes life ra-
diant in human eyes and precious to the human heart. But that is not
all. A devastating flood of convictions, in answer to a popular prejudice,
is sweeping over this devoted land of Utah. Will you have the courage
to-day, before the rush becomes indiscriminate and more disastrous, to
dam that flood with your disapproval and say to the world, and if not to
the opinion of this day, to the future: “It is possible for a Mormon ac-
cused of this offense and tried before a jury of his sworn opponents, to
receive justice — to be acquitted when the evidence and the facts do not,
cannot warrant his conviction?” Never, perhaps, in all the annals of
history, has there been a greater opportunity to show the strength and
lasting worth of true manhood than you gentlemen possess this hour.
Will you be equal to the emergency?
It requires heroism, and the reward conies not to-day. But history is
full of bright pages flashing with the deeds of men who dared all and
whose very names make your heart strings thrill. You do not forget
Arnold Winkelried, the Swiss patriot, who rushed against the oncoming,
solid phalanx of Austrian spears, coming with swift tread like an irre-
sistible public clamoring force. He seized an armful of the glittering
steel and buried the points in his own breast, while his companions
broke through the opened way which had been made for liberty,
and Switzerland was redeemed. Go back a few ages among the legends
of imperial Rome and recall how a vast crevice burst open in the earth,
yawning at the very portals of the forum. The sacred oracles cried that
it would never close and Rome must perish unless a sacrifice of some
choice human life were offered. In an hour, back came the flower of Ro-
• man chivalry, a noble youth with the fire of grand daring flashing from
his eyes. He was adorned in holiday attire; he rode his highest mettled
barb, and when he reached the gaping fissure with one quick spring,
brave, handsome rider and richly decked steed had sunk out of sight
into the abyss which closed forever. But these are only instances of
physical courage. It requires even a quality of greater bravery to be a
•
HIS TEN WIVES.
60
moral hero. There is one Englishman whom Americans love better
than all others of his race and time. I mean Pitt— the man who had the
courage to stand in the British Parliament and defy the wicked govern-
ment’s project for the annihilation of liberty in this land. Such an op-
position as that of which he made himself the champion might mean
disgrace, the ruin of all his ambitious projects; but he dared to say to
the King and the ministry: “If I were an American, as I am an English-
man, while a foreign foe remained in my country, I would never lay
down my arms, never never, never.” Remember our own patriots of last
century, who declared the divine idea that all men were free and equal.
They walked in a pitiless storm of hostile opinion. Even later, almost
in our day, the men who led the movement for the abolition of slavery
were execrated by the public clamor as wretches unfit to live, as “nigger
stealers,” worse than murderers. These men all went on their wray,
knowing that the day of justice would dawn when their heroism would
be recognized at its full value.
It is not so difficult an act to perform a deed of physical valor, with the
sound of fife and drum, the spirit, the enthusiasm, the wondrous physi-
cal power which is imparted to a man in the clangor and glory of assem-
bled multitudes of warriors or admiring, applauding friends. But it is
more, for a man to sit down in the presence of his soul and say: “For the
sake of my own truth and manhood, I will perform this act of justice,
and I dare to face the opposition of the world.” Gentlemen, if you are
animated by this exalted feeling, this court room will not only be the
Temple of Justice to my client, but it will be to him his city of refuge,
within the gates of which the hating multitude may not pass.
I have a few words more to say, gentlemen, before I close. My client
was convicted last week upon a similar charge, only the alleged offense
was placed a year later. You see his age — more than seventy years — his
hair is white with December frost. I ask you to consider well what you
are doing before you render a verdict which would impose upon him an
additional penalty. Imprisonment means more in his case than in most
others. It means more than the deprivation of the necessary comforts
and attentions with which his age and circumstances have made him fa-
miliar. It means more than the change from the society of loving
friends, to be the involuntary companion of thieves and murderers. Yes,
gentlemen, for to my client, it may mean— death ! Death within the
prison walls ! And yet, do not understand me that I am here as a sup-
pliant for mercy to my client. God forbid that I should ever be placed
in any earthly court where I shall ever have to ask for mercy on his be-
half or any other man. I ask simply for Lorenzo Snow to-day, justice,
brave justice. I ask for nothing more; I expect nothing less. I hope
and trust that you may be able to rise to the dignity of this hour, that
you may be able to see and grasp your opportunity to become moral
heroes, that you will step forward and stop this onward devastating rush
of injustice and wholesale condemnation, which is sweeping through
this Territory, and which your outstretched hands can stay.
But, gentlemen, if you fail to view the grandeur of your position, if
you fail to act as becomes moral heroes, mark my word: the future will
bring its retribution of regret to your hearts. No act of oppression can
go forever unwhfpped of conscience and destiny. This is true of indi-
viduals and nations. Read the blazing lesson of history, and it says
that from the hour that Persia’s myriad army was tossed like chaff from
the shore of the land which it had hoped to desolate, down through the
HIS TEN WIVES.
61
many ages until the hour when the Corsican corporal swept like the
archangel of war in an avenging triumph over the tyrannical nobility of
Europe; yes, search your story until this present hour; you will find
that destiny has been lying in wait to bring retribution to every family
and every land which has transgressed the laws of justice and humanity.
Gentlemen, this world has had her chapters written in blood and
tears. She needs no more. Your verdict, now to be rendered, will be-
come a part of an important historical epoch. I entreat you, by the re-
gard which you have for your own fair fame; by your love for your
children, who will judge you in the light of the future, by your
admiration and hope for your country and her reputation, that you
will not be swayed by prejudice, but that you will be guided by facts
honestly stated. I ask you in the name of all that is sacred and dear to
the human heart, to render a verdict which will not pale your faces, nor
bring to the cheeks of your posterity the blush of shame; and that you
will render such a verdict as the history of your country may truthfully
say was not animated by cowardice or vindictive hate; and that verdict
will be ‘not guilty.”
CHAPTER XV.
HOW MORMONS REQUITE THE LOVE AND DUTY OF EARLY WIVES.
AT the close of Mr. Richards’ speech the prosecution was concluded
by Assistant District Attorney Bierbower, who reviewed his for-
mer remarks and said : I might with confidence close my case here, but
professional courtesy to my brother lawyers on the other side demands
that I should not pass their arguments in silence. Counsel have insist-
ed that at about the time of the passage of the Edmunds Law, this de-
fendant separated from the older wives, that he deeded to them the
homes in which he left them, that he moved into a new house with Min-
nie, the youngest wife, that this has been his only home, and that, there-
fore, he has complied witli the law. It was not an unusual thing, even
long before the Edmunds law, for polygamous wives to live in different
houses, and in this case for several years prior to 1882, the fifth wife,
Mary, lived alone, and the first wife Adeline and the sixth wife Phoebe
lived together in the Cotton Thomas house. During this time Sarah,
Harriet, Ellinor, Minnie, and the defendant all lived together in the old
homestead. The brick house is built in the same yard with the old
homestead with walks and gates connecting the two houses. The wThole
yard is surrounded by stone walls and fences seven feet high— thus com-
pletely obstructing a view into the yard from three sides and partially
hiding the view from the other side. Even with these high walls and
fences we were able to show frequent visits to and from the old home-
stead. In regard to deeding the different wives the property on which
they live, it appeared from the evidence that those deeds were executed
in 1872, but the remarkable fact was disclosed that those deeds were not
recorded until November, 1882— eight months after the Edmunds law
was passed. In fact, the whole life of this defendant has been an eva-
siod of, instead of a compliance with the law. He evaded the law in
Illinois when he married the second wife. He evaded the common law
when he fled with his plural wives into Mexico. He evaded the law in
marrying every wife since the first wife and he evades the law to-day
by living with the last wife instead of the first wife. And no one knew
all this better than the defendant himself as demonstrated in the man-
ner of his arrest. When the Marshals surrounded the house and de-
manded admittance they were detained. When at last they gained ac-
cess they searched that house from cellar to garret and back again. The
whining of a dog betrayed him, and when the Marshals took up the
flooring they found one trap door that led to another, and there in this
subterraneous cavern they dug out this Apostle of the Lord as a fron-
tiersman digs out a wood chuck. Why, if he was complying with the
law, should there be this evasion and hiding and fleeing from that very
law which would shield and protect him? Why should there be this
equivocation and evasion on the part of his witnesses? And why, if he
HIS TEN WIVES.
63
has complied with the law in the past, is he not willing to promise to
obey that law in the future? for this would end this prosecution at once.
Mr. Snow stands before this jury in a dual capacity, as an individual
and a representative. He is acknowledged to be the most learned and
scholarly of all the Apostles. His collegiate training, his extensive
travels on the continent, his eloquence in the pulpit and his vast wealth
all combine to make him pre-eminently the representative of his people.
One word from his eloquent tongue or one line from his caustic pen
would go farther toward settling this vexed question than any other
dozen men in the Mormon Church. I verily believe that the example of
his conviction will be more potential for good, than would be the con-
viction of three score of elders, deacons and bishops. In this case we are
fighting the throne itself. And I will venture the prophecy now that
with his conviction, and those that are to follow, the time is not far dis-
tant when there will come a new revelation which will put and end to
polygamy. His defence before this jury is the defence which his lawyers
make for him — it is not his defence. I am unwilling to believe that he
authorizes his attorneys to say that he has separated from and aban-
doned his wives. Such a defense as that implies a heartlessness and
cruelty on his part which even the prosecution does not charge against
him. We are fighting a principle here— not the man. When we look at
*this venerable man, past three score and ten, surrounded by these vener-
able women, the wives of his youth and his early manhood, we are car-
ried back in memory to the early days of Mormonism. We think of
these women as his girl wives in the dark and stormy days of Nauvoo.
We hear their pathetic story of how they stood by him when he was
driven by an infuriated mob from Illinois and subsequently from Mis-
souri. We heard in painful silence the story of how these young wives
shared with him the trials and vicissitudes of his early life; how faith-
fully they stood by him when they bid their last farewell to civilization
and started with him on their overland journey to this promised land.
We have heard of that long and toilsome and dreary journey across the
plains, how the wolves howled around their camp fires at night and the
Indians hovered on their trail; how bravely they withstood the tortur-
ing and blistering rays of the summer’s sun on the plains and how
cheerfully they endured the chilling rain of November which froze as it
fell upon them on the mountains. They stood by him, oh how faithful-
ly, as he came into this valley— then a wild, dreary, desolate and barren
waste. They helped to break the virgin soil and build the cabin of their
humble home. They helped him to earn every dollar he has in the
world, and when he was away on a mission to foreign lands, they and
their children toiled and labored and saved for him until to-day, in his
old age, he is surrounded with all that adorns and beautifies and em-
bellishes life. But these old, true, tried, faithful, devoted and, even yet,
loving wives, are abandoned, deserted and housed away where they are
clothed and fed until they die ! There in their solitude these old women
sit in silence and dream over the panorama of the past, while almost
within the sound of their feeble voices the defendant lives in open adul-
tery with the woman who takes their place. If this is one ot the lessons
taught us by polygamy, then may God speed the day that will see this
infamous and accursed institution swept forever from the face of
the earth! And now, gentlemen of the jury, may we hope on the
part of the prosecution that your verdict in this case, rendered at
the close of this dying year, will be such a verdict as \yill nerve our
64
HIS TEN WIVES.
hearts and strengthen our hands for the work which lies before us in
the new year upon which we are about to enter.
DEFENDANT S INSTRUCTIONS.
The defendant requested the Court to instruct the jury as follows:
1. — The defendant should be acquitted unless you find it is proved by
the evidence before you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he has cohabit-
ed with more than one of the women named in the indictment, between
the last day of December, 1884, and the first day of December, 1885.
2. — The term “cohabit” means “live with,” or “dwell with,” and in the
act under which the defendant is indicted it means to live with as wives.
8.— To constitute “cohabitation” there must be such a frequency or
regularity and manner of association of a man and woman as to amount
to a “living together,” and distinguish the association from mere visits,
and so long as there is not a “living together,” occasional visits do not
amount to cohabitation.
4. — The defendant, though living with one wife, could lawfully visit
another and her children at reasonable times, and for lawful purposes
and the purposes of inquiring concerning the health and welfare of
such other wife and his children by her, of providing for their support
and the education, employment and business of the children, would be
lawful. He is not required by law to break off friendly or social or re-
ligious meetings at their houses.
5. — Having more than one wife and claiming and introducing more
than one woman as wives do not constitute the offense charged. You
must find to justify a conviction that he has lived with more than one
within the time stated in the indictment.
6. — The law assumes the defendant innocent until he is proven guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt; and his guilt or innocence is to be deter-
mined by you, and what others or the public may have believed, or had
reasons to believe from his manner of living, is not the issue, but you
are to say from the evidence whether or not he did in fact live with
more than one woman as charged.
7. — The defendant was not required to give any notice, public or other-
wise, of his manner of life or his purposes, or whether he was or was not
abstaining from cohabiting with more than one woman, and it is a suf-
ficient defense if you find from the evidence that it is not shown, be-
yond a reasonable doubt, that he in fact did live or cohabit with more
than one.
8. — It is immaterial whether or not there was any change of conduct
toward, or of relations with his wives at the time of the passage of the
Edmunds law, if at and prior to that time he was not violating the pro-
visions of the act relating to cohabiting with more than one woman,
and if in 1885 he has not so cohabited, he is innocent of the present
HIS TEN WIVES.
65
charge, whether such innocence is the result of a change of relations
with his wives or the result of a maintenance of former relations.
The Court refused to give each of the foregoing instructions, severally,
except such of their substance as was given in his general charge to the
jmy, and to the refusal to give each of said instructions asked the de-
fendant then and* there duly excepted.
During the delivery of these addresses the best order prevailed. A
deep interest and feeling pervaded the entire audience, but every incli-
nation to exhibit either approval or the contrary was smothered prompt-
ly and completely.
CHAPTER XVI.
FINAL WORDS FROM THE BENCH TO THE JURY.
IT WAS now past the usual hour for adjournment, but the Court
announced its desire to conclude the great case, if it were possible,
before the new year, and proceeded to perform the duty imposed by the
Utah law, and delivered the following charge to the jury, after which an
officer was sworn to look to the jurors, and the Court took recess till 7 :30
o’clock p. m.
Gentlemen of the Jury: This is a simple case. It is not one of
great importance, but is simply a prosecution for an alleged misdemean-
or. You will decide this case as you would any other, simply upon the
law and evidence. The law governing the case is well settled. You are
not the judges of the law, and you will be governed by the charge of the
Court with reference to the law. You must take that as final.
The indictment charges that the defendant on the first day of Jan-
uary in the year of our Lord, 1885, at the County of Box Elder, in this
District and Territory, and on divers other days between the said first
day of January, A. D. 1885, and the first day of December, A. D. 1885, did
then and there unlawfully live and cohabit with more than one woman,
to-wit: with Adeline Snow, Sarah Snow, Harriet Snow, Eleanor Snow,
Mary H. Snow, Phoebe W. Snow, and Minnie Jensen Snow, and during
all the period aforesaid in the county aforesaid the said Lorenzo Snow
did live and cohabit with all of said women as his wives.
If you believe from the evidence, gentlemen of the Jury, beyond a rea-
sonable doubt, that the defendant cohabited with the women named in
the indictment or any two of them as his wives, and that he held the
women out to the world as his wives, by his language, or conduct, or
both, you should find him guilty. It is not necessary that the evidence
should show that he dined with these women or either of them, occupied
the same bed, slept in the same room or dwelt under the same roof,
neither is it necessary that the evidence show that within the time men-
tioned in the indictment the defendant had sexual intercourse with
either of them. The question is, were they living in the habit and re-
pute of marriage? The offense of cohabitation is complete, when a man,
to all outward appearances, is living or associating with two or more
women as wives. If the conduct of the defendant has been such as to
lead to the belief that the parties were living as husband and wife, then
the defendant is guilty. Of course, the defendant may visit his chil-
dren, and also may make directions regarding their welfare, and
may meet the women on a friendly and social equality. But if he asso-
ciates with them as a husband with his wife he is guilty. The Ed-
munds law says, there must be an end to the relationship previously ex-
isting between polygamists. It says that relationship must cease. □ If
HIS TEN WIVES.
67
you find the defendant guilty you must find, as I said, beyond a reason-
able doubt that he has cohabited with the women named, or two or more
of them a portion of the time named in the indictment, to-wit: Bet ween
the first day of January, A. D. 1885, and the first day of December, A. D.
1885. The evidence introduced as to what occurred prior to the time
named in the indictment is a matter for your consideration as tending
to throw light upon the relation of the parties within the time charged.
If there is evidence that he did or has married the women and has been
living with them as his wives, that may be considered by the jury as
adding weight to any circumstances proven, tending to show unlawful
cohabitation during the time the offense is charged.
The law presumes the defendant innocent until proven guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that has some rea-
son for its basis. It does not mean a doubt from mere caprice or ground-
less conjecture, but is such a doubt as a jury are able to give a reason
for. If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence
in the case you can say and feel that you have an abiding conviction of
the guilt of the defendant, and are fully satisfied of the truth of the
charge, then you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses, the weight
of the evidence and of the facts. If you find the defendant guilty you
will say in your verdict, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty m the
manner and form charged in the verdict ” If you find the defendant
not guilty, you will say, “We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty,"
CHAPTER XVII.
A VERDICT OF GUILTY AND HOW IT WAS RECEIVED.
PON the retirement of the jury the crowd that had been in attend-
ance for two days and had hnng upon every word of witness,
Court and counsel, seemed loth to depart. There were guesses of convic-
tion and guesses of acquittal. Some friends of the accused were so san-
guine that they boldly said, “justice demands” an acquittal. The nu-
merous ladies present left, with their escorts, or in couples, but would
seize upon every opportunity to make excuse for halting along their
route beyond the court room. The tired bailiffs and Marshals for a time
vainly suggested to the little knots of spectators that the Court would
not assemble for an hour or two. There seemed to be a spell that bound
them, a fascination that enchanted them to the place where the Govern-
ment had put upon trial, for crime, an “Apostle” of God !
Finally the room was cleared and the crowd scattered; some to private
homes, some to resorts about town, others gathered in little knots and
in low tones talked over the scenes of the day and the yesterday. The
Judge and some of the counsel, meantime, hastened to their hotel to rest
and be refreshed. At every hand they were met only to be spoken to
more or less anxiously. There was an uneasy, a restless grouping to-
gether of people on every hand. A messenger arrived and made inquiry
for the Judge. Mr. Tyler informed him that he was in his private room.
Curiosity and inquiry were aroused. 1 short message, quietly spoken,
informed the Judge that the Jury had agreed. The officer was told to
go back and tell the jury that a recess had been ta£en till 7 :30, and that
it was useless before that hour for them to return to the court room.
Time wore on. The minutes that passed counted no less distinctly the
pulsations and beatings of anxious hearts, than they numbered the dy-
ing moments of the year that was fast being registered in the books of
Time.
Presently the great crowd moved to the court room. Deputy Hansen
opened wide the doors. The jury were there. The court, the lawyers,
the officers and the accused were also there. Slowly, led by her escort,
came the best beloved wife of the Apostle. Another one of his wives fol-
lowed, and close behind her came the lovliest woman in Utah— Mrs. Lo-
renzo Snow, Jr., wife of the Apostle’s son. They seated themselves near
HIS TEN WIVES.
69
the “Apostle.” A hush at once settled upon the murmuring assemblage.
The foreman, at the call of the clerk, responded “Guilty.”
The silence was then painful. The newspaper men, trained for such
occasions, watched the faces of the accused and his wives intently. Not
a movement of muscle marked the “Apostle’s” face. Naught but a paler
shade told of “Minnie’s” feelings. Richards, 6f defendant’s counsel,
arose, apparently with effort, to give notice of a motion for a new trial
and to ask for indulgence in the preparation of papers. It was granted.
The calm man who sat there, the symbol of this Republic’s power and
justice, quietly directed the order of hearing cases hereafter, and ad-
journed the Court. An “Apostle” had been tried, an “Apostle” had been
convicted, and yet the man who had so skillfully controlled the great
throng who had gathered there filled with hope, hate and happiness,
quietly left the room, and seemed unmindful of the fact that for forty-
eight hours he had been making history !
A word more. There were some distinctive features about the case
that should not, in justice, be lost sight of: Some of them were these.
Judge Powers presided. The case was unlike any yet tried in Utah, in
this, that it was one of the “segregated” cases. It was not tried at the
“Center of Utah,” and was marked by a liberality of intelligence that al-
ways characterizes that presiding officer. Again, it was a most notable
case, both as to the person accused and convicted, and the counsel de-
fending—several of Utah’s most trusty lawyers, in the belief and judg-
ment of the Mormon Church. The prosecution was conducted by one
man— Vic. Bierbower— the Assistant of the present District Attorney of
Utah. He was alone. He was newly appointed and, to Utah Courts, a
stranger. He managed his case with dignity, tempered with suavity;
wfth coolpess, coupled with vigor; with courageous intelligence, un-
blurred by browbeating or self-importance, and in doing this he won the
respect of all within and without the bar, and filled the official place he
has been called to occupy, with credit to himself, and with fidelity to
his profession and his Government; and he did it without assistance.
The counsel for defendant presented their case most admirably.
Stripped of the declamation and sophomoric features of one of the ad-
dresses, the defendant’s counsel proved themselves masters alike of the
Damascus blade of Saladin, and the ponderous battle-ax of Richard.
And to crown the whole, not a dissenting voice is heard as to the trials
propriety, and the community acquiesces in this vindication of the law.
The motion for a new trial was set for 10 a. m. Friday, January 8th.
The accused— still on bail in this case and two others of like nature,
which were set for hearing on the following Monday, January 10th,
1886— left with his women and friends for his home.
CHAPTER XVIII.
A NEWSPAPER MAN MORALIZES OVER THE EVENT.
HUS another act in the Apostle’s life-drama ended. While the
actors are shifting the scenery and preparing for their next ap-
pearance on the busy stage, let the reader contemplate some of the strik-
ing pictures that were presented during those two eventful days of the
dying year. Here is one of which, in the midst of Wednesday’s proceed-
ings, the writer made this picture for the ‘cold types.’ It must have im-
pressed, deeply and sadly, every man and woman who beheld it and
thinks freely and fearlessly, unfettered by fanaticism and unurged by
“A man— seventy-two years of age, born in the boasted State of Ohio,
where Liberty and Virtue are claimed as being indigenous to the very
soil, and with the inhalations of her free air, nurtured and grown
strong— was upon trial for willfully violating a law of his native land,
made to protect society, purity, morality and the sanctity of the home.
“He is a sensible man, a reading and an educated man. He claims to
be a loyal man and a gentleman. He sat there unmoved amid the great,
smothered feeling that filled the bosoms of many spectators. Without
movement or visible emotion, he heard and intently listened to the facts
sworn to by a cloud of witnesses. Yea, he went further; he told his at-
torneys to save time by admitting that he had had ten and now has
seven wives !
“This would seem bad enough, but, worse than this, these seven wo-
men were there. As a general thing they testified freely. They did not
disclose, as they coolly gave in their evidence, aught but a glorification
in the publicity of their proven shame. Some of them are old and tot-
tering now; some of middle age, one of them young, with an infant in
her arms. And yet these women heard it stated; heard it admitted; yea,
themselves declared that that man for years had been carnally and con-
stantly using and cohabiting with them in a common way ! And that as
fast as one of tftiem would get old, worn, wrinkled and uninviting, she
would be set aside and left to die, and the man betake himself to the
younger and, to him, more inviting ones to gratify his passions as a male
member of humanity ! And this, too, by virtue of a pretended command
guilt.
HIS TEN WIVES.
71
ofJAlmighty God whose curse has been pronounced upon adulterers and
fornicators.
D“01d sows are sometimes put in pens, fed and fattened for slaughter.
Sometimes, too, old cows are treated in a similar way. Stories are told
of old mares turned loose upon the commons to find such pickings as
they might until death relieved them. But the masters who did these
things were generally heartless, brutal men, and the poor old animals
unable to help themselves. But here are women, the presumption is ed-
ucated women. Women who have borne children (for a Mormon hates a
barren woman) and ought to know a mother’s, if not a husband’s love,
who coolly sit in a Court of public justice and tell the world, without a
blush or regret, that as fast as they grew old the companion of their
youth would pen them off separately, feed them and shelter them, just
like so many old cattle, and provide for their needs until they shall die !
While the younger ones of the harem were kept, associated with and
used for breeding purposes !
[1 “Merciful God ! Does it seem possible that fanaticism can so blind a
woman whom Nature made to be a mother, a wife? Does it seem possi-
ble that self-respect can so wither? That decency and love can be so ut-
terly wanting? And yet what is here related was stated by these women,
under oath, in a Court of Justice upon the trial of their ‘husband.’
“Enough. Let the subject drop. Shame for our fair country. Shame
for the victims themselves; shame for Virtue; shame for ourselves bid
us, in pity and in loathing, ring down the curtain.”
CHAPTER XIX.
OPINIONS OF BOTH MORMONS AND GENTILES ON THE RESULT.
AS MIGHT very naturally be expected, the conviction of Lorenzo
Snow stirred the community of the Mormons to its very depths-
It was the theme of discussion everywhere. Mormons vied with one
another in denunciation of the Court, and its officers and curses upon
the Government of the United States. Upon the head of Senator George
F. Edmunds especially were anathemas heaped by the Mormon press.
He was the Satan, in their opinion. The evil of the evil ones. The non-
Mormons said nothing, but with eyes brightened by a hope, with hearts
lightened by the belief that at last the Government was about to enforce
the law, which aims to purge, to purify and protect society and the
American’s home, they moved steadily along their ways.
To the thoughtful man and woman the conviction of the “Apostle”
Lorenzo Snow was pregnant and gave rise to many serious reflections.
The trial itself added facts to history— facts that have been heretofore
hidden, or obscured amid a cloud of misapprehension, misrepresentation
and contradiction.
First and prominent, among the facts, it is now positively known that
the generally taught and generally believed doctrine that there was no
polygamy practiced by the Mormons in the early and infant days of the
“Mormon Church,” is a falsehood. “Harriet,” one of the “Snow family,”
testified that she married Snow forty years ago at Nauvoo. “In 1846,
in Nauvoo, I became his fourth wife, he having married before that time
three other women, two of whom he married on the same day.” These
were the witness’ words, maintained and unchallenged.
The doctrine, therefore, that polygamy was first practiced because of a
divine revelation to some one subsequent to the early days of the Church,
falls flat, and is a deception and a lie, and adds one more fact to history.
No matter what sort of pretended “revelation” might have been claimed
as made to anybody, the fact is that polygamy was practiced by Lorenzo
Snow, one of their present “Apostles,” in 1846, in Nauvoo, before Utah
had been reached by the Mormons. And “Harriet,” fourth wife of Snow,
testified to it in a Court where her polygamous husband was on trial for
“unlawful cohabitation,” and whereof he was convicted by a jury ac-
cepted by himself, without protest.
HIS TEN WIVES.
73
tHtr^er“U!ible £r°“ the ~tances disced in the Snow
trial, and as satisfactorily established as if orally stated by witnesses nn
ch“;1oVtb1irtnn,eader8 °f th6 M™ » recognizeHie criminal
character of their polygamous conduct and habit; and, to preserve them
selves secure in the faith of their followers, who, othemLe would n^
urally begin to doubt their divine authority, are preparing to play still
further upon their credulity and ignorance, by bowing wi?h p?etLded
' WH hty to/he Sen*tence o£ the law nP°u their crimes, and with assumed
“U-e 1 1° r6CeiVe *he tllmishmeilt for their offenses as a visi-
norantl th Tit UP°n / righteous- They Propose, knowing the ig-
norant faith of the masses of their followers, to pose as martyrs for the
practice of their almost bestial lust in the name of virtue, ot morality,
of religion and of God. And, indeed, giving them the credit of shrewd-
ness, unscrupulousness and worldly wisdom— a credit that justly be-
“f.*? these leaders-this is about the only course for them to pursue,
the!? may’ 6ven for a littIe while longer, hold control of
their subjects conscience, conduct and purse.
Another fact brought out and undenied on the Snow trial is signifi-
cant and pregnant with meaning, especially to the masses of the Mor-
mon people. It is this: The Mormon Apostles do not believe polygamy
is dl^lne or right. It was shown that Snow, against whom, before No-
vember, 1885, no charge or indictment existed, had long ago penned off
his worn-out women, set them apart in separate establishments, provid-
ed stohe walls and seven-foot fences about their habitations to render
his visits unseen and practically invisible, and beneath the flooring of
the house of one woman, whom he lived with as the tenth of his herd in
point of time of marriage, he had constructed a cave, or secret cellar ap-
proachable only by two trap doors, one of which was hidden by a carpet
spread on the ground floor of the house proper. In this dug out or un-
derground hiding place, he was found, strangely enough by the ’actions
and winnings of a dog kept as a guard for this one of his “homes,” after
his “companion” above him had declared, and repeatedly declared he
had been absent for months and was then nowhere in the vicinity !
Would an “Apostle,” prophet, servant, or what you will, of God Al-
mighty, whose mission is to teach His divine will, to lead the people
along the path and practices of His orders and commandments, be found,
even before he is accused of earthly crime, penning off his wives given
him by God, and digging a hole to hide in beneath the house of his
tenth God-given companion? Would such a divinely ordained “Saint”
have trusted his safety, and his personal freedom from arrest by a Dep-
uty Marshal of Utah, more to a tied-up dog, a ready tongued woman and
an eight foot dug-out or cellar, than he would to the power and protec-
tion of Almighty God? Ask yourselves, reader, and answer. Is not the
74
HIS TEN WIVES.
knowledge of sin, the consciousness of guilt, the true cause of such con-
duct on the part of a man who, if he really believes in the rectitude of
his life and conduct, would boldly, bravely, confidently have stepped
forth and met the accusers, safe in the knowledge that God the Almighty
was his protector, his master, his support?
This “Apostle” read the handwriting on the wall. His race as a pre-
tended mouth-piece or agent of the God of humanity, and of true relig-
ion, was, he saw plainly, drawing to an end. The mask of hypocrisy and
pretense of divine authority he had paraded for forty years, was about
to be snatched from his true character. His brutish lechery that had
worn out about six, and buried three misguided women, and the mercy
of a Governmeut that legitimated their offspring years after birth, all
passed before his mental vision, and with them walked in company the
ghost of his facilities for living at ease upon the credulity and money
of his dupes, and the wretched man, brought to bay before the grim,
never-faltering figure of Justice, paled, trembled and turned from the
victims of his conduct and the gatherings of his lifetime, to run into his
underground hole, and to hide himself and his presence from the press-
ing footsteps of that Justice !
No man, honest in his convictions, will run and hide from an account-
ability for his deeds done by virtue of those convictions. Apostle Lo-
renzo Snow did run and did hide.
CHAPTER XX.
SNOW’S plea why sentence should not be pronounced.
S THE 10th day of January drew nigh the popular excitement and
anxiety, that had to some little extent subsided during the first
two weeks of the new year, whose festivities somewhat diverted the peo-
ple’s thoughts, were renewed, for that day had been fixed upon to pro-
nounce sentence upon Lorenzo Snow, should his motion for a new trial,
that was argued some weeks before, be overruled.
At dn early hour of the tenth a vast throng moved towards the U. S.
Court House and when the doors were opened filled every available place.
It was in interest and numbers a reproduction of the attendance during
the two days of the “Apostle’s” trial in December.
Soon after opening Court, Judge Powers took up the three cases
against Lorenzo Snow, remarking that he could decide the question
raised in all of them by one ruling. It must be recollected that Snow
had had his trial in all three cases, and had been convicted, although
this narrative is confiined to only one of them. The other two cases
were similar in all respects to this, except, that counsel raised the legal
question that the indictment, trial and conviction of the defendant in
one case — say for 1885— for violation of the Edmunds law, whose limita-
tion of time includes and covers a period of three years next preceding
the finding of the indictment, was an estoppel to any other indictment
for any similar offense, alleged to have been committed within the three
years next preceding the date of the first indictment. The two other
cases against Lorenzo Snow, as before stated, were of this character, and
that class of cases are known to the Courts and the bar as “segregated
cases.” Upon the question of their being maintainable or not the opin-
ion of the Supreme Court, rendered in one of these Snow cases will be
given hereafter in this volume.
The motions for new trial having been disposed of by refusal, nothing
remained for the Court to do but pronounce judgment and sentence upon
the convicted “Apostle.”
“Lorenzo Snow, you will stand up,” spoke the Judge. The gray haired
convict arose. He had evidently schooled himself for the occasion and
maintained a calm, dignified bearing as he looked the Court steadily
and straight in the eye. The vast crowd about him leaned forward, anx-
76
HIS TEN WIVES.
ious to catch even a whisper that might fall from the lips of the Court
or the convict. The Judge reminded him of the various steps already
had in the trial and that nothing now remained for this Court to do ex-
cept to pronounce the sentence of the law upon him. “Have you any-
thing to say now, why sentence should not be pronounced upon you
upon the three verdicts of guilty lately returned by the juries?” said the
Judge. Thereupon the convicted man, with marked manner, clear but
impressive voice, so skillfully modulated and toned that it was readily
seen what an accomplished man he is, spoke as follows:
“Your Honor, I wish to address this Court kindly, respectfully, and
especially without giving offense.
During my trials, under three indictments, the Court has manifested
courtesy and patience, and I trust your Honor has still a liberal supply,
from which your prisoner at the bar indulges the hope that further ex-
ercise of those happy qualities may be anticipated.
In the first place, the Court will please allow me to express my thanks
and gratitude to my learned attorneys for their able and zealous efforts
in conducting my defense.
In reference to the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Bierbower, I pardon him
for his ungenerous expressions, his apparent false coloring and seeming
abuse. The entire lack of evidence in the case against me on which to
argue that line of speech was his only alternative in which to display
his eloquence; yet, in all his endeavors, he failed to cast more obloquy
on me than was heaped on our Savior.
I stand in the presence of this Court a loyal, free-born American Citi-
zen; now, as ever, a true advocate for Justice and Liberty. ‘The land
of the free, the home of the brave” has been the pride of my youth and
the boast of my riper years.
When abroad in foreign lands laboring in the interest of humanity, I
have pointed proudly, to the land of my birth as an asylum for the op-
pressed.
I have ever felt to honor the laws and institutions of my country, and,
during the progress of my trials, whatever evidence has been introduced
has shown my innocence. But, like ancient Apostles when arraigned
in Pagan Courts, and in the presence of apostate Hebrew Judges,
though innocent, they were pronounced guilty. So myself, an Apostle
who bears witness by virtue of his calling and the revelations of God,
that Jesus lives— that he is the Son of God; though guiltless of crime,
here, in a Christian Court I have been convicted through the prejudice
and popular sentiment of a so-called, Christian Nation.
In ancient times, the Jewish Nation and Roman Empire, stood versus
the Apostles. Now, under an apostate Christianity, the United States of
America stands, versus Apostle Lorenzo Snow.
HIS TEN WIVES.
77
Inasmush as frequent reference has been made to my Apostleship, by
the prosecution, it becomes proper for me to explain some essential qual-
ifications of an Apostle. First, an Apostle must possess a Divine knowl-
edge by revelation from God, that Jesus lives— that he is the Son of the
living God.
Secondly, he must be divinely authorized to promise the Holy Ghost;
a Divine principle that reveals the things of God, making known His
will and purposes, leading into all truth, and showing things to come,
as declared by the Savior.
Thirdly, he is commissioned by the power of God, to administer the
sacred ordinances of the Gospel, which are confirmed to each individual,
by a Divine testimony. Thousands of people now dweliing in these
mountain vales, who received these ordinances through my administra-
tions, are living witnesses of the truth of my statement.
As an Apostle, I have visited many nations and kingdoms, bearing
this testimony to all classes of people— to men in the highest official sta-
tions among whom may be mentioned a President of the French Repub-
lic. I have also presented works embracing our faith and doctrine to
Queen Victoria and the late Prince Albert of England.
Respecting the doctrine of plural or celestial marriage, to which the
prosecution so often referred, it was revealed to me and, afterward in ’43,
fully explained to me by Joseph Smith, the Prophet.
I married my wives because God commanded it. The ceremony which
united us for time and eternity was performed by a servant of God, hav-
ing authority. God being my helper, I would prefer to die a thousand
deaths than renounce my wives and violate these sacred obligations.
The prosecuting attorney was quite mistaken in saying “the defend-
ant, Mr. Snow, was the most scholarly and brightest light of the Apos-
tles,’ and equally wrong when pleading with the jury to assist him and
the ‘United States of America,’ in convicting Apostle Snow, and he
‘would predict that a new revelation would soon follow changing the
Divine law of Celestial marriage.’
Whatever fame Mr. Bierbower may have, secured as a lawyer, he cer-
tainly will fail as a prophet. The severest persecutions have never been
followed by revelations, changing a Divine law, obedience to which,
brought imprisonment or martyrdom.
Though I go to prison, God will not change His law of Celestial mar-
riage. But the man, the people, the nation that oppose and fight against
this doctrine and the Church of God will be overthrown.
Though the Presidency of the Church and the Twelve Apostles should
suffer martyrdom, there will remain over 4,000 Seventies, all Apostles of
the Son of God, and were these to be slain, there still would remain
many thousand High Priests and as many, or more Elders, all possess-
ing the same authority to administer Gospel ordinances.
78
HIS TEN WIVES.
In conclusion, I solemnly testify, in the name of Jesus, the so called
“Mormon Church” is the Church of the living God; established on the
Rock of Revelation, against which “the gates of hell cannot prevail.”
By the Court: The Court desires to ask you, for its own information,
what course you propose for the future concerning the laws of your
country.
Mr. Snow: Your Honor, in regard to that question, the prosecution
had some sixteen witnesses. Through or by these witnesses I was
proven guiltless of the charge contained in the indictment. There was
not, your Honor, one scintilla of evidence showing that I had unlawful-
ly cohabited during the last three years or since the passage of the Ed-
munds law; that I had cohabited with more than one woman. That
your Honor, I believe, will concede, I believe. I have obeyed'that law.
I have obeyed the Edmunds law. Your Honor, I am guiltless,. I am in-
nocent.
Well, now, your Honor asks me what I am going to do in reference to
the future. I have been found guilty after having obeyed that law. I
am sorry, I regret that your Honor should ask me that question, and if
your Honor please, I should prefer not to answer it.
CHAPTER XXI.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT PRONOUNCED.
UDGE POWERS then said: Mr. Snow, from its knowledge of you and
your reputation, which came to the Court, however, before you were
arraigned here, the Court became, and is, aware that you are a scholar.
The Court is aware that you are a natural leader of men; that you have
a mind well adapted to controlling others and for guiding others no
matter in what land you may have been placed. You have these at-
tributes and would naturally cause people to turn toward you for advice
and for counsel. You are a man well advanced in years, and you have
been favored by time because it seems to me he has touched you but
lightly with his finger.
The Court feels that, in view of your past life, of the teachings you
have given to this people, of the advice and counsel you must have given,
and recognizing further that you are among other leaders the leader of
leaders and in this should advocate that it is right that the law of the
land should not be violated, it cannot exercise the leniency and mercy it
would be called to extend to a man of your age, if it were not for your
great influence and great power for good or for evil. I sincerely believe
that Lorenzo Snow could cause the people of this Territory to obey the
laws of the nation if he chose so to do. But his example is one who ad-
vocates, and he is charged also with a practical violation of the law.
The Court must pass sentence in this case in a way and manner that
will indicate to the people that the laws of the land cannot be violated
with impunity, even by one whose age, learning and influence is equal
to yours. The sentence of the Court is that you be confined in the U.
S. penitentiary at Salt Lake City, in Utah Territory, for the period of
six months, and pay a fine of three hundred dollars, and the costs of this
prosecution and be committed to the custody of the United States Mar-
shal of Utah until such fine and costs are paid.
The same sentences were pronounced in each of the two other cases in
which the defendant had been found guilty; the three cases aggregating
eighteen months confinement in the penitentiary and nine hundred dol-
lar fines with the costs of the prosecution in each case.
The defendant was on motion of his counsel allowed to go on the bail
furnished. Meanwhile the necessary steps for perfecting^ his appealkto
80
HIS TEN WIVES.
the Supreme Court of Utah Territory were ordered to be speedily pre-
pared to insure a hearing of the cause at the February term of that
Court. And then again the curtain was rung down for a time.
W. Greenman, John Cudihee, E A.Ireland, E A. Franks, L.B.S. Miller, T.Smith, J. Gleason, O Vandercook,
Jhief Deputy. U S.D.Marshal. U.S. Marshal. U. S D. M. Chief Clerk. U.S.D.M. U.S.D.M. U.S. Deputy Marshal.
CHAPTER XXII.
THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS THE FINDING OF THE COURT BELOW. □
HAT the reader may follow the legal steps in this great trial with
greater ease, let us now continue their consideration, returning
to the movements of the “Apostle” hereafter.
As we have already seen, Snow’s attorneys appealed in each case de-
cided in the District Court against him to the Supreme Court of the
Territory of Utah. Fending the hearing and decision of that Court the
convict was on bail.
The cases were heard together and on Saturday, February 16th, 1886,
at Salt Lake, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case charg-
ing Snow with crime during the year 1885. The Court was unanimous
in its decision, and sustained Judge Powers’ action and rulings through-
out. The entire Court — Chief Justice Zane, Justices Boreman and Powers
—were present during the presentation of the case by District Attorney
W. H. Dickson and the aforementioned counsel of Snow. Chief Justice
Zane delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
Zane, C. J.— The defendant was convicted of the crime of unlawful
cohabitation, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the
term of six months, and to pay a line of three hundred dollars and the
costs of the prosecution. From this judgment he has appealed to this
Court, and insists that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict.
At the commencement of the trial the defendant admitted before the
Court and jury that he had married each of the seven women named in
the indictment; had not been divorced from either, and that he claimed
all of them as his wives and furnished them support.
It appears from the evidence that appellant was first married more
than forty years ago in Nauvoo, Illinois, to two women, Adeline and
Charlotte, at the same time and by one ceremony (the latter of the two
women has since died); and that he has since married, in the order
named, Sarah, Harriet, Eleanor, Mary, Phoebe and Minnie, also one
other, Caroline (now deceased). The last marriage was in 1871. The
first marriage was unlawful, because the marriage with two women at
the same time is void. Therefore Sarah is the lawful wife. The evi-
dence shows, and is admitted by defendant, that he has lived and cohab-
82
HIS TEN WIVES.
ited with the youngest and last wife since his marriage to her, and that
she has four children, the youngest being three months old.
Sarah Snow, the lawful wife, was introduced as a witness without ob-
jection, and, with other testimony, gave the following: She married de-
fendant about forty years ago, and now has grown children by him. she
lives at the old homestead, in company with Harriet and Eleanor, and
has been living there nearly thirty years; five years ago Minnie lived in
one wing of the old homestead and defendant lived with her, their social
intercourse has been friendly, and he calls on her occasionally, he calls
on her less frequently as he grows older. In answer to the question:
“State if it is not about the only difference in your relations in living
that he does not call to see you as often as he did formerly?” witness stat-
ed: “Well, sometimes he calls and sometimes he don’t call. I do not see
him as much as I did five years ago; he does not visit me as much as he
did when he boarded with me.” Witness also said on cross-examination
that she has five children, that two live at home, and the youngest is
twenty-two years old; that defendant, whenever he goes home, passes
by the door— that being one way to go, passing through the lot; that
witness went away in the spring of 1885, and that the defendant was
away six or seven months; that he had called on her two or three times
during 1885, and would remain perhaps half an hour; that since de-
fendant moved to the new brick house with his last wife he has never
slept in the house where witness slept, and no room is kept for him;
that when he came he would generally be busy with their son; that his
calls of late were principally with their son: that he would inquire if
they were getting along all right.
Harriet Snow, another wife, stated that she was married to defendant
forty years ago, in December of that year, that he is the father of her
children, and that she lives in her own home, which appellant provided
for her and that he arranges for her support; that he had visited her a
few times during the year 1885, somotimes to enquire about the chil-
dren; that she could not say how often he visited her, but he did visit
her; witness was asked if there was any difference between their rela-
tions during the last years (1885) and those of six years ago: to which
question she answered: “A good deal; in my younger days, I lived with
him as a wife, and raised him children. Now I am an old lady and I do
not consider the relations binding upon him in my younger days to be so
now. I do not live with him in the same way.” Mary Snow also an-
swered the interrogatory: “Is it not true that he has not called
as he used to, and is not that the only difference?” in the follow-
ing words: “He does not call so much for the reason that he has
been away from town. He does not visit me as much as he did a num-
ber of years ago.” To the further question: “Then the reason he visited
HIS TEN WIVES.
83
you less, was because he was away a great portion of the year?” she an-
swered, “Yes, I guess so; he has been away the last year.” Eleanor
Snow, another polygamous wife, among other things stated: “I guess I
recognized him as my husband and he me as wife during 1885; don’t
know; the difference in our relationship the last year and formerly is
he does not live at my place. I guess the only difference is he is not in
my company so much— you understand. Previous to that, he visited and
dined with me once in a while. When he dined with me, it was with
me and my children, unless there was company to these family gather-
ings. Mr. Snow occupied the position as head of the family and occu-
pies the head of the table when he is there; his friends all put him at
the head of the table.” Dr. J. B. Carrington testified that, in 1885, he
saw defendant in company with Sarah— out riding with her; another
woman was in the carriage— thought it was Harriet; that he also saw
defendant and Sarah sitting together in the theater, in the part of the
house usually occupied by the Snow family, and that they afterwards
went out together. In the city where defendant lives, he and his va-
rious wives and their families appear from their evidence to be regard-
ed by all as one family, and this family has a place assigned to it in the
theater apart from other people; that each wife and her family are re-
garded as a portion of defendant’s family— of the Snow family— and
that the appellant is regarded as the head of this entire family by each
member of it. In 1885 the last witness saw defendant go in and come
out through the gate in front of the old homestead, where Sarah and
two of his polygamous wives lived, but witness did not see him go in or
come out of that house. The officer who arrested appellant testified that
after he had searched defendant’s house he discovered a carpet that had
been ripped, and on examination found underneath the carpet a trap door,
and under that door a small apartment, and back of that another apart-
ment, and in that apartment he found defendant. Defendant did not
come out when called, until the officer made preparations to break the
door; defendant then said: “All right, I am coming out,” and when he
came out, he said further: “That is all right, boys; you have done your
duty; come and take a drink with me.”
It appears from the evidence that appellant boards and lodges with
his last wife and visits his other wives occasionally, though not very
often; that during the year 1885 he has not lodged or taken a meal with
any one of the others; that he furnishes them houses to live in and sup-
ports them; that he introduces them publicly as his wives, and by his
language and conduct holds them out to the world as such. The evi-
dence proved beyond controversy that defendant cohabits with his polyg-
amous wife, Minnie. The remaining fact to be found from the evidence
is, has he at any time during the year 1885, cohabited with the other
84
HIS TEN WIVES.
women named in the indictment or any one of them? It appears from
the evidence that defendant is seventy-two years old, and has married
nine wives, and that seven of those wives are still living. To the first
he was married in his youth. As his passion for one wife became satia-
ted and dulled by indulgence and gratification, and as his lust was
again kindled by the appearance of a younger and fresher, or possibly a
more attractive woman, he would marry again, until his marriages have
been repeated nine times, and now at the age of seventy-two years he is
found with seven living wives — the last being comparatively young
with an infant in her arms. He furnishes homes for, supports, asso-
ciates with, claims, holds out, and flaunts in the face of society all these
seven women as his wives. And yet he says he cohabits with but one.
The law must characterize his relation to them, and his intercourse and
association with them. Let us consider the case with respect to Sarah,
his lawful wife.
A lawful marriage of itself affords a strong presumption of matrimon-
ial cohabitation, because such cohabitation is in accordance with duty
and usually attends such a marriage. When to this presumption are add-
ed the further inferences from the following facts, that defendant
claimed Sarah all the time as his wife, and that she claims to be such;
that he provides for her a home and the necessaries and comforts of life;
that they were on good terms; that he took her to the theater, out riding,
visited her occasionally at her home and was the father of her children.
The conclusion removes every reasonable doubt that he cohabited with
her as his wife. When they were associating together, she was not his
paramour or his friend simply— he then had and still has all the
rights and opportunities of a husband, and she those of a wife. They
were living and were together. Under such circumstances the law will
not permit them to say they were together merely as friends and not as
husband and wife.
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE JUDGES DEFINE THE LAW ON COHABITATION.
THE opinion continues: It is not essential to matrimonial cohabita-
tion that the parties should be together all the time if their inter-
course and relations are agreeable and they associate together some part
of^fche time. In that case the law does not notice the intervals of sep-
aration. Owing to the necessities of human life, and the claims of busi-
ness and trade, married people are often in each others company less
for long periods than the defendant and his wife Sarah were during the
year 1885, and yet they are regarded as cohabiting as man and wife.
Such is often the case with mariners, traveling salesmen, and other
classes of persons that could be mentioned. They associate at long in-
tervals and are regarded as cohabiting.
C. The third section of the Act of Congress of March 22d, 1882, was in-
tended to reach such conduct as the evidence proves the defendant
guilty of— “If any male person * * * * * * *
* * * * cohabits with more than [one woman he shall ' be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,” etc. When the entire act, of which
the above quotation is a part, is taken and considered together in the
light of the occasion and necessity of its enactment, and of the evil it
was intended to remedy, we are of the opinion that the term cohabit
should be given a broad meaning. In construing the term, regard
should be had to the spirit and general intent of the act. “It is an es-
tablished rule in the exposition of statutes that the intention of the law-
giver is to be deduced from a view of the whole and every part of a stat-
ute, taken and compared together. When the words of a statute are nut
explicit, the intention is to be collected from the context— from the<oc-
casion and necessity of the law — from the mischief felt — and the object
and remedy in view; and the intention is to be taken or presumed ac-
cording to what is consonant to reason and good discretion.” This was
the rule laid down by Plowden, pp. 10, 67,205,363, and by these maxims
Chancellor Kent affirms, “the sages of the law have ever been guided in
searching for the intention of the legislature,” and commends them, “as
maxims of sound interpretation, which have been accumulated by the
experience and ratified by the approbation of ages.” 1 Kent Comm*
4627. Potter’s Dwarris on Statutes and Constitutions,;?. 196, note 13,
86
HIS TEN WIVES.
In construing the term cohabitation as used in the act under consid-
eration, the Supreme Court of the United States says in the case of the
United States vs. Cannon (not yet reported): “It is the practice of unlaw-
ful cohabitation with more than one woman that is aimed at— a cohabi-
tation classed with polygamy and having its outward semblance. It is
not on the one hand meretricious unmarital intercourse with more than
one woman. General legislation as to lewd practices is left to the Terri-
torial Government. Nor on the other hand does the statute pry into the
intimacies of the marriage relation. But it seeks not only to punish
bigamy and polygamy, when direct proof of the existence of those rela-
tions can be made, but to prevent a man from flaunting in the face of
the world the ostentation and opportunities of a bigamous household
with all the outward appearance of the continuance of the same rela-
tions which existed before the act was passed, and without reference to
what may occur in the privacy of those relations.”
This Court, speaking by Boreman, J., said: “What then was the object
of the Congress in enacting this statute? It was, judging from the
whole act, intended to break up polygamy and the practice thereof”—
Pacific Reporter, Vol. 7, No. 7 ; p. 374. The opinion of this Court in the
case of United States vs. Musser, (1 ibid. p. 391) is to the same effect: It
appears plain that the intention was to protect the monogamous mar-
riage, by prohibiting all other marriages, either in form or in appearance
only, whether evidenced by a ceremony, or by conduct and circumstances
alone. * * * * *• The end of the law was a protection
of the monogamous marriage, and the suppression of polygamy and un-
lawful cohabitation were but means to that end. It is proper also to
take into consideration the conditions as the National Legislature an-
ticipated them— in which the law was to be applied and enforced. They
knew the time had elapsed within wtfiich a very large portion of those
living in polygamy could be punished for that offense, and that many of
these were among the most influential men in society, being the heads
of the Church; and that the example of their continuing to live with
their plural wives under a claim of Divine right would be a continuing
invitation and an apparent justification* for their followers, either se-
cretly or openly to violate the law\ Congress therefore forbade plural
marriage in appearance only, as wTell as in form, and by the example of
punishment it doubtless intended to eradicate the example of apparent
plural marriages, as well as the plural marriage in form.”
The evidence against the defendant shows one of the most aggravated
cases and worst examples of polygamy. He has one lawrful and six plu-
ral wives living, and all of them he maintains and publicly acknowl-
edges by introducing them as such; but claims that he is cohabiting
HIS TEN WIVES.
87
with but one and visiting the others when he pleases. We are of the
opinion that the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict.
The defendant excepted to certain parts of the charge given in the
lower Court, and assigns the giving thereof to the jury as error. The
charge appears to have been an oral one and does not consist of separate
instructions. Each part of it should be regarded as qualified by the
other portions. If the paragraphs excepted to were not misleading when
so considered, they should not be regarded as erroneous. The portion
first excepted to is: “It is not necessary that the evidence should show
that the defendant and these women, or either of them, occupied the
same bed, slept in the same room, or dwelt under the same roof; neither
is it necessary that the evidence should show that within the time men-
tioned in the indictment the defendant had sexual intercourse with
either of them.” This was a statement of facts not necessary to be
shown by the evidence and was immediately followed by a statement of
essential facts as follows: “The question is, were they living in the habit
and repute of marriage ? The offense of cohabitation is complete when a
man to all outward appearances is living and associating with two or
more women as wives.” When the portion of the charge objected to is
taken with that which immediately followed, the jury must have under-
stood that if the defendant and any two of his wives were living in the
habit and repute of marriage, and to all outward appearance they were
living and associating together as man and wife, it was not necessary
to show they occupied the same bed, slept in the same room, dwelt under
the same roof or that they were guilty of sexual intercourse.
The jury must have understood that it was necessary for them to be-
lieve from the evidence that the defendant and at least two of his wives
lived and associated together as man and wife to all outward appear-
ances and that it was not necessary that he should board and lodge un-
der the same roof with one or have sexual intercourse with them. If
they so understood they were not misled.
Counsel for appellant also assign as error the giving of the following
as a part of the charge: “The question is, were they living in the habit
and repute of marriage? The offense of cohabitation is complete when a
man to all outward appearances, is living or associating with two or
more women as wives. If the conduct of the defendant has been such
as to lead to the belief that the parties were living as husband and wife
live, then the defendant is guilty.” This paragraph must be considered
with the one in which the jurors were instructed that they must be sat-
isfied of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before they
could convict.
The defendant also excepted to the following clause of the charge and
assigned the giving thereof as error: “Of course the defendant might
HIS TEN WIVES.
88’ ■'
— V
visit his children by the various women, he may make directions re-
garding their welfare; he may meet the women on terms of social equal-
ity: but if he associates with them as a husband with his wife, he is
guilty. The Edmunds law says there must be an end of the relationship
previously existing between polygamists. It says the relationship must
cease.” So much of the clause as stated that the defendant might visit
his children, make directions regarding their welfare, and might meet
his wives on terms of social equality was quite as favorable to the de-
fendant as he could ask. And the further statement, “But if he asso-
ciated with them as a husband with his wife he is guilty,” was a rather
meager statement of what had been stated more fully in the preceding
part of the charge. The remark that “the Edmunds law says there must
be an end to the relationship previously existing between polygamists”
and that “it says the relationship must cease,” was evidently made in-
advertently. It was a disconnected affirmation, intended to be a decla-
ration of the general intent and purpose of the law known as the Ed-
munds law. As a statement of the purpose of the law it was correct.
That act was doubtless aimed at polygamy and intended to put an end
to it. The statement could not be understood as a definition of the crime
of unlawful cohabitation. And the jury could not have so understood it.
That offense had been fully described in the preceding portion of the
charge. We do not believe that this statement of the purpose of the law
misled the jury and therefore it is not ground for reversal.
We are of the opinion that the exceptions of the defendant to the rul-
ing of the trial court in admitting and refusing evidence are not well
taken.
After a careful examination of this record we find no ground suffi-
cient to reverse the judgment of the District Court, and is therefore af-
firmed. Powers. A. J. concurs.
Bozeman, J. concurs.
On Saturday, February 13th, 1886, the Supreme Court, all the mem-
bers being present, delivered the opinions of the Court in the cases
charging crime upon Snow in 1883 and 1884. These opinions also sus-
tained the action and rulings of Justice Powers on the first trials. No
Judge could possibly have more grounds for satisfaction and be more en-
titled to the confidence and support of his Government and his fellow
countrymen than this young man, who, in so short a time, had mastered
fully the question that for years had baffled the statesmanship of the
land, and became the problem whose solution bench, bar and Congress
have been endeavoring to accomplish.
Upon the rendition of these decisions, Apostle Snow’s attorneys gave
notice of appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, the last re-
sort and the highest tribunal in the Republic. A suitable time was
HIS TEN WIVES.
89
granted for instituting the appeals and Apostle Snow meantime re-
mained on bail. His bonds were in a penalty of fifteen thousand dollars,
well secured. And here until the highest Court passed upon the ques-
tions so disposed of by the Utah Courts, strictly speaking, ends the im-
mediate court trial of Lorenzo Snow, whose bond permits him to go at
large, and who awaited at his harem in Brigham City the determination
of those questions, which alone saved him from wearing the short hair,
the clean shaven face and a convict’s striped suit in the Utah pentiten-
tiary.
But this story is not yet ended. There is much to interest the good
citizen of the Union yet to be told.
CHAPTER XXIV.
[ROW SNOW GLORIED IN HIS TRIAL AND CONVICTION,
ORDINARILY a man who had passed through such a trial as Lorenzo
Snow had just emerged from— leaving upon the records of
his country, fully sanctioned by three juries of his own people and
neighbors, after hearing the testimony of his “wives” and friends, three
sentences of conviction for crimes committed against decency, chastity,
society, morality and his native land— would have been crushed with
shame and a sense of degradation, and during the time left for him to
exist in this world Would endeavor to seclude himself from the public
gaze and to hide his name and, if possible, his memory from the execra-
tions of his own and coming.generations.
Not so with this hoary headed offender. With a shamelessness beyond
the most brazen mountebank or hardened criminal, he kept himself be-
fore the public, paraded his “plural women,” decked in furbelows and
finery, showy apparel and ornaments that ill became some of those
wearied, faded forms, and unblushingly accepted entertainments in dif-
ferent places, just as though he were a decent citizen yet, loyal to the
laws, proud of his country and the peer of those who render that alle-
giance to her behests which none but traitors refuse to render. No one
would suppose to see him in public places, at social gatherings, in public
halls, on railroad cars, in the Capital City of Utah, yea, in the pulpit,
where truth, morality, loyalty and Christianity are supposed to be urged
and promulgated, that he was the man who had so recently been de-
clared a convict, and already decreed to serve three terms in the peni-
tentiary for crime.
Yet such is the fact. Receptions and social parties were given him in
different towns and cities. He and his seven women, most of whom are
sadly “faded flowers” now, were feted and feasted, petted and partied,
while he was the social lion, the demi-God of his “gang.”
Before a trip to the Northern portion of Utah, this Mormon hero, now
playing the role of martyr, journeyed with his harem-dwellers elsewhere
throughout the Territory and the Sunday before Judge Powers sentenced
him, but after his convictions, he delivered the following sermon in the
Tabernacle in Brigham City, his home and the place where he kept the
seven women and the wonderful co-operative store— that “combination
HIS TEN WIVES.
91
of spiritual and temporal interests,” his sister Eliza and R. (Joe Smith’s
“sealed” wife), wrote so glibly about:
I am thankful for the opportunity of addressing this large audience,
most of whom, I recognize as my intimate friends and associates, for
whose spiritual, moral and intellectual advancement, and temporal pros-
perity, I have labored diligently through a period of over thirty years,
ever since the establishment of its first dwelling or hamlet.
This, I presume, will prove my last opportunity, for some length of
time of addressing you, being now under bonds of six thousand dollars,
to appear next Saturday, the 16th inst., at Ogden, to receive sentence for
cohabiting with my wives, having been pronounced guilty for the same
offense, under three indictments. Undoubtedly my sentence will em-
brace the extreme limit the law allows— eighteen months imprisonment,
nine hundred dollars fine, with costs of prosecution added.
I do not now propose to enter into details respecting the three trials
under those indictments, resulting in verdicts of guilty without one
particle of evidence by which to justify such verdicts— the very singular
and extraordinary charge to the jury by Judge Powers— the urgent ap-
peal of the prosecuting attorney, for the jury to assist in convicting the
defendant— the eloquent and forcible arguments of my counsel— the in-
tense anxiety of Judge Powers and the prosecution to impress the jury
that it was their imperative duty to convict the defendant, as (in the
language of the attorney), “He was a high official in the Mormon Church,
and therefore it was expedient in the warfare against that Church, that
he should be made a victim.” All these matters and proceedings will be
recorded and published to the world; they will be preserved and handed
down as items of history for the consideration and judgment of future
generations.
In passing, I will observe, however, that in the progress of my trial’
this fact was demonstrated — it is needless for a Latter-day Saint, occu-
pying any position of prominence, and living his religion, to expect jus-
tice in the tribunals of this once boasted land of civil rights and relig-
ious liberty; but now, under the blighting, merciless influence of relig-
ious bigotry and sectarian fanaticism of an apostate Christianity, it is
even better to look for justice in courts under the ruling powers of a
moral and honest infidelity.
I was pronounced guilty of violating the Edmunds law. Previous,
however, to its enactment, my wives (except the one with whom I was
living) having passed the period of maternity, by mutual consent, we
were living in accordance with the requirements of that law, and, this,
too, without violating any principle or object embraced in the law of
celestial marriage.
To “multiply,” was the first commandment given to our first parents.
92
HIS TEN WIVES.
Purity in matrimonial intercourse, I always believed, should accompany
that command, and I have always endeavored to observe faithfully its
practice. I married because it was commanded of God, and commenced
in plural marriage, I contracted marriage with four women about the
same time, and with a mutual understanding with each that they were
to be equal— neither was to take or assume the status of a first or legal
wife. Two of them were united to me in the sacred bonds of matrimony
at one and the same time, by the same ceremony. The other two short-
ly after, also at one and the same time, and in like manner.
CHAPTER XXV.
HE DEFIES THE LAW AND URGES HIS FOLLOWERS TO DO LIKEWISE.
OF ALL the witnesses introduced by the prosecution, the testimony
of each tended directly to establish my innocence. The Prosecu-
ting Attorney, when addressing the jury, said: “This case of a promi-
nent leader of the Mormon Church is under investigation; he is one of
the most scholarly and brightest lights, and we require your encourage-
ment and assistance. The eyes of the nation are now upon you, and as
loyal citizens, from you a verdict of guilty is expected; and if you heed
this appeal , I can assure you, and predict emphatically, if the defendant,
Mr. Snow, and a few other Mormon leaders can be secured, it will not be
long before a new revelation will follow, calling for a change in the law
of patriarchal marriage.”
Last year one thousand sectarian ministers petitioned Congress to leg-
islate more severely against the “Mormons,” and punish them with great-
er cruelty; and this has been the cry and watchword of priest and peo-
ple throughout the length and breadth of our unhappy country, arousing
and fostering a popular feeling and sentiment that it would be right,
and doing the will of God, to overthrow and destroy this kingdom which
the Prophet Daniel foresaw, and which God has now established.
For many years past, my heart and feelings have been devoted to the
promotion of your interests~your welfare and happiness; with what
success, you, my friends, are the proper judges. I shall soon depart
from your presence, and submit myself to the officers of the law, and
whether I may be permitted again to address you from this stand, I can-
not say— a matter, however, about which none need have the least anx-
iety.
I go to prison with the full assurance that I can serve God and His
purposes— magnify my calling, and prove to the world, my faith and
sincerity in the principles I have taught, during fifty years among many
nations— that Jesus is the Son of God— that He has revealed His Priest-
hood, and the fullness of the ancient Gospel, and established His Church
by revelation.
When I received the Apostleship, I well remember saying to my breth-
ren, who were present, that very possibly the same sacrifices would be
required of the modern Apostles as were experienced by the Apostles an-
94
HIS TEN WIVES.
eiently, including their persecutions and martyrdoms. I said, in receiv-
ing this sacred calling, I felt as though it were ascending an altar where,
perhaps, life itself would be offered. The Lord has said: “I have decreed
in my heart that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide
in my Covenant even unto death; for, if ye will not abide in my Cove-
nant, ye are not worthy of me.” Seriously considering all this, I asked
myself: Am I willing to accept these conditions— to so deny myself and
suffer for the glory of God, and to honor and magnify this Apostleship?
God is now feeling after us, and will disclose our secret thoughts. It
would be well to purify and prepare ourselves, and in the language of
the Psalmist, call upon God, saying, “Search me, 0 God, and know my
heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked
way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”
If we succeed in passing through the approaching fiery ordeals with
our fidelity and integrity unimpeached, we may expect at the close of
our trials, a great and mighty outpouring of the Spirit and power of
God— a great endowment upon all who shall have remained true to their
covenants. We must be more eager to cultivate friendly relations with
our neighbors, together with love and affection for our wives and chil-
dren that peace may dwell in our households, and confidence in the midst
of the people.
“Fifty millions of people” are said to be calling loudly for the exter-
mination of the “Mormons.” If it be a fact that our religion is divine,
established of God, there is no cause for alarm, nor even anxiety or un-
easiness. Tens of thousands, through the teachings of the sacred Gospel
know it to be true— a fact, by immediate revelation to themselves.
Therefore, these “fifty millions of people,” are not fighting the “Mor-
mons,” or their religion, but they are fighting God and His purposes.
Israel, on the banks of the Red Sea, were God’s people— a fact perfect-
ly known to Moses; and he knew, also, what were the purposes of God,
concerning them. Hence, there was no occasion for alarm or anxiety in
view of the overwhelming forces of Pharoah’s army, threatening imme-
diate annihilation. God’s eye was upon Israel— they were there by his
direction— a fact— a revealed fact, known to Moses and Aaron, and
doubtless by many others, by direct communication from God. It is
true, they were placed in a frightful situation — naturally, a hopeless
one from which no human power or ability could extricate them.
Israel was there, not from choice, but by the command of God; and He
had arranged His own programme; yet Pharoah with his armed hosts,
thought to thwart His purposes, and in the end was overthrown and de-
stroyed; and the result of this ignorance and folly stands recorded on
the page of history as a lesson to all generations.
God established the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by di-
rect revelation; this is a fact, clearly and distinctly revealed to thou-
HIS TEN WIVES.
95
sands. The so-called “Mormon” people, in these valleys, are the acknowl-
edged people of God, and are here, not by their own choice, but by im-
mediate command of God. The work and management is the Lord’s —
not the people’s— they do His bidding, and He, alone, is responsible for
the result.
We have no occasion for fear or cause for trembling— the purpose of
God will be accomplished— what He has recommenced will be consum-
mated though the combined armies of the earth should rise up and op-
pose. It is a fact that God has spoken, and called latter-day Israel from
among the nations, and planted them in these valleys; therefore, this
work is His, and, although he may lead us as He did Israel of old, into
seemingly desperate situations, requiring serious sacrifices— the despoil-
ing of homes— incarceration in prison, and even jeopardizing our very
existence; and yet, it will be but for a moment, as it were, and then
those trials will terminate as did Job’s, in an increase of possessions;
and as ancient Israel’s, in a kingdom and country— honor, glory and do-
minion.
Some of our brethren have queried whether hereafter, they could feel
themselves worthy of full fellowship with Prophets and Saints of old,
who endured trials and persecutions; and with Saints of our own times
who suffered in Kirtland, in Missouri and Illinois. The brethren referred
to have expressed regrets that they had not been associated in those
scenes of suffering. If any of these are present, I will say for the conso-
lation of such, you have to wait but a short time and you will have simi-
lar opportunities, to your heart’s content. You and I cannot be made
perfect except through suffering. Jesus could not. In His prayer and
agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, He foreshadowed the purify-
ing process necessary in the lives of those whose ambition prompts them
to secure the glory of a celestial kingdom. None should try to escape by
resorting to any compromising measures.
All who journey, soon or late,
Must come within the garden gate,
And kneel alone, in darkness there,
And battle hard, yet not despair.
It is now proposed to enact laws to govern the “Mormon” in Utah, simi-
lar to those passed in Idaho to afflict our people, viz: “Whoever claims
membership in a church or organization, teaching or practicing the
principles of Patriarchal marriage, shall be deprived the right to vote or
hold office.” Thus we understand the time is at hand when, whosoever
admits he is a Latter-dhy Saint, must feel the oppressive grasp of perse-
cution. How many now here, are ready— having oil in their vessels, and
lamps trimmed, and prepared for coming events?
I am not sorry, nor do I regret on account of the near approach of
these fiery ordeals; the Church, no doubt, needs purifying— we have hyp-
96
HIS TEN WIVES.
ocrites among us— milk-and-water Saints— those professing to be Saints
but doing nothing to render themselves worthy of membership; and too
many of us have been pursuing worldly gains, rather than spiritual im-
provements—have not sought the things of God with that earnestness
which becomes our profession. Trials and afflictions will cause our
hearts to turn towards our Father who has so marvelously wrought out
our redemption and deliverance from Babylon.
I wisli to offer a word of caution to my brethren that you may beware,
and commit no grave errors when brought into positions of trial and
temptation. Some, unfortunately, have disregarded this injunction, and
have imprinted a stain upon their character, and a blot upon their rec-
ord which cannot be erased in time— perhaps not in eternity. These are
fearful mistakes. Better suffer a thousand deaths than succumb to the
force of persecution by promising to discard a single principle which
God has revealed for our glory and exaltation. Our character as Latter-
day Saints, should be preserved inviolate, at whatever cost or sacrifice.
Character, approved of God is worth securing, even at the expense of a
life-time of constant self-denial.
While thus living we may look forward far away into the spirit land,
with full assurance that, when reaching that happy clime, we shall be
crowned with the sons and daughters of God, and possess the wealth and
glory of a Celestial kingdom.
Apostle Paul in his time taught the Saints to have the same mind in
them as was in Christ Jesus, who, finding himself in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Apostle John, on the same
subject says: “When Jesus appears we shall be like Him.” “Every one
that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself even as God is pure.”
As man now is God once was— even the babe of Bethlehem, advancing
to childhood— thence to boyhood, manhood, then to the Godhead. This,
then is the “mark of the prize of man’s high calling in Christ Jesus.”
We are the offspring of God, begotten by him in the spirit world,
where we partook of his nature as children here partake of the likeness
of' their parents. Our trials and sufferings give us experience, and es-
tablish within us principles of Godliness.
Jesus has, in our day, visited this world, and been seen of men on dif-
ferent occasions. He appeared on the 3d day of April, 1836, to the Proph-
et Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, in the Temple at Kirtland, Ohio.
This important visitation is described as follows:
“The veil was taken from our minds and the eyes of our under-
standing were opened.”
“We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit before
us, and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold in color like amber.”
HIS TEN WIVES.
97
™ “* - «■ '«»« 7;r
~ » — -» »rCL?c, rvs r/r.
^»^ss%a-j5is5is
hpi^r !° a,dl,ress yon again- many times in this life, though this mav
torM7 pT 7 a0WeVeK *hiS WU1 be 1 3ha11 ^Pect to meet you in yonder
rl?tf Wl? r0bes 0f C8lestial beauty. amid the glory of the Sons or
. ’ 'ere «™f an<i suffering shall have ceased — when tears no ion per
" ~ zziszzz
iiMOTtelity.^nd J°y *orever relgn> in those realms of glory, honor and
‘t.W'?re n,ot tbat it ifi believed that its publication will serve to en-
ceit bLPe^leof.thlsR®publicto appreciate the depth of Mormon de-
ceit, cant, hypocrisy and pretense, this sickening harangue would be
thrown aside. But despite its length, it has been published forThi nur
pose and with this hope, from among numbers more that ^uld Te Z-
At another time after his conviction, accompanied by his “plurals ” he
onecZV tuT & rr railWay to Logan City, one ofthe nests
to W Ter’rft «an p?Iygamy> aU(l one of tbe worst dens of treason
in the Territory. His coming had been proclaimed by an enslaved press-
he was met and escorted in honor and pomp from the depot, afterwards
holding private and public receptions and winding up the visit by a
view of the Temple, devoted to treason and hypocrisy, and the dirty “En-
dowment House, the hotbed of tost, lasciviousness, mummery andblas-
p e!ny’ . An< 80 1,1 has been witb him and others, and so it will be until
the law breakers awaken to the horrors of this “ism,” and wipe it and
its followers from all place and power in the land.
CHAPTER XXVI.
REASONS WHY ALL MORMONS ARE CRIMINALS.
HERE are some things so solemn that they should be considered
and examined only with the most thoughtful care. There are pe-
riods in the lives of men and of nations which are too momentous to be
touched upon except with caution and earnestness. In their examina-
tion there is no place for vanity, exaggeration, boasting, threats or cow-
ardice. They are deep, broad and mighty. The intelligent man recog-
nizes this fact and treats them accordingly. As in life the superficial
observer sees the lightnings flash and hears the thunders roll about
the point of the mountain, so the thoughtful man considers the great
powers of nature that pervade the universe in silence.
In a spirit of such calm deliberation has the writer endeavored to ex-
amine the Mormon problem, and in all seriousness, fully aware of the
meaning of his words, maintains the proposition that all Mormons are
criminals tested by the laws of morality, advanced society and the
American Republic.
In this place we are discussing the naked proposition that all the mem-
bers of the organization known as the Latter-day Saints are criminals.
We are not discussing any remedy, or suggesting any policy for curing
this state of facts, and now call your attention to this great ’fact, not
remedy, for it.
This organization, popularly known as a “Church,” is a blending in-
dissolubly together of matters spiritual and matters temporal. It deals
directly with men’s affairs in this life and assumes control of those af-
fairs in the world to come. It reaches its members under the pretense
of God-given authority and makes them responsible to it over and above
any and all man-made laws. It declares in so many words, that no gov-
ernment is binding on its people whose mandates emanate from man;
that only those laws are mandatory and to be obeyed that come direct
from God to Mormon self-styled priests.
It teaches and enforces blind, perfect and implicit obedience to its or-
ders as given by its head men, as commands delivered to them by the
God of the world direct and in person. It teaches that any rule or law
of earthly making that in any way conflicts with these “inspired” direc-
tions,'spoken to these head-men by Jehovah, is null, void and not to be
HIS TEN^WIVES.
99
obeyed, and with power over body in this world and power over sonl in
the world*to come, the head-men enjoin, enforce and compel that blind
obedience. Their “Church” knows no “new trial,” it grants no “appeal.”
Its order once entered is final, and its enforcement means not only death
to the disobedient’s body, but death to his soul.
To control its followers; to enforce obedience to its secret laws, it has
consummated an organization which only deceit, hypocrisy, daring im-
morality, despotism and treason could initiate, maintain and operate.
Let’s look at it.
CHAPTER XXVII.
SOMETHING ABOUT THE CHURCH ORGANIZATION.
IN 1880 this Church had as officers and members as follows: As their
members increase and the Territory occupied is extended, the minor
officers and the members do likewise.
First, One President and two High Priests; these compose the First
Presidency. A Quorum or Council of Twelve Apostles (Lorenzo Snow is
one of the oldest of these), eight Patriarchs, also High Priests, ministers
numbering 3,207 ; one Presiding Bishop with two Counsellors; one Pa-
triarch of the Church; members of Seventies (a church organization)
4,138; Elders, 10,085; Priest, 1,290; teachers (church dogmas), 1,459;
Deacons, 3,212; twenty- three stakes, or districts cover the general Church
organization, presided over by a President and two Counsellors, who are
High Priests. Stakes q^e divided into wards, with a Bishop and two
Counsellors, who are also High Priests. Bishops number 260. High
Priests 520. Villages scattered are controlled by a presiding Priest
whose order is law.
The members of the organization in the United States number nearly
300,000 to-day. They have branches in every State and Territory, also
in nearly every country in Europe, New Zealand, and nearly all the Pa-
cific Islands, and are preparing to place an immense colony in Mexico,
where, in Sonora, adjacent to Arizona, they have secured several mil-
lions of acres of land, and paid for it.
They have innumerable temples, tabernacles, etc., but no schools, ex-
cept those where the entire dogmas of the sect are taught as binding by
order of God. The people of wards are wholly subject to the control of
their immediate officer, the Bishop, who reports to the Stake President,
who reports to the Chief or President of the Church and the two High
Priests; these three, known as the “First Presidency.” The Bishop con-
trols every action and interest of the ward people. He holds court, di-
rects and finally decides all affairs temporal and spiritual. He hears
and summarily tries all transgressors and recognizes no other earthly
authority, except the appeals (which are provided for through the inter-
medate organizations) to the “First Presidency,” of which the President
(John Taylor), is Chief, and the mouthpiece of Jehovah. So with stakes,
etc., the entire organization forming one absolute government is respon-
HIS TEN WIVES.
101
sible to no earthly power, recognizes no laws except those spoken by the
Almighty through John Taylor or whomever may be the President.
Besides this organized power and absolute control over the property,
body and soul of the members, the Church has another great hold. It
collects yearly one-tenth of all income and products, as tithes. This fund
is used by the head of the Church as he sees fit, without responsibility to
anybody, or liability to make account of how it is used. In 1880 the
amount of Church money collected from tithes, and the numerous other
taxes or funds was over $1,000,000. In 1885 it was more, because the
“Church” by telling the people their religion was in danger and their
leaders being persecuted for religion’s sake, was enabled to gather large
additional sums. What becomes of this immense sum a non-Mormon
and nine hundred and ninety-nine in the thousand of Mormons cannot
tell. But the head men from high to low are all rich.
Besides this there is in nearly every settlement a “Co-operative Mer-
cantile Institute,” which was originated to boycott Gentiles and apos-
tate Mormons in Utah, but it turned out to be such a “bonanza” to the
Mormons (all head men in the Church), and such an easy way to get the
people’s money and earnings at a nominal price, and to appropriate in
the name of the Church, that the managers are now the “money kings”
of the country and still go on demanding and collecting.
Here then is seen what instruments of power the leaders have, what
control they exercise without accountability to anyone but themselves
and co-workers. Bear well in mind that the Mormons recognize no
fealty, loyalty, allegiance or obligation to any power, law or tribunal
that conflicts with or is not sanctioned by their Church, by their Presi-
dent, who is now John Taylor— an old man of some eighty years, in hid-
ing with others of his “Apostles” for crimes for which he has
been indicted, and who will probably soon end a career blackened by
deeds that make one shudder. His successor will, in “Church” order, be
George Q. Cannon, who, also, for some year or more has been in hiding
for like crimes, but was captured at a railroad station called Humbolt,
Nevada, along the Central Pacific route, on Saturday evening, February
13th, 1886. He was disguised and trying to get out of the United States,
probably to Mexico or Honduras. He was accompanied by other Mor-
mon officials, among them D. H. Peery, Mayor of Ogden City; the same
man who so constantly stood by Lorenzo Snow in his trials and became
one of his bondsmen. It is probable that Peery was with Cannon only as
friend and sentinel, but he was aiding a criminal to escape.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES— THE END.
IT IS true that the leaders, the head men, in this giant scheme called a
“Church,” are the men chiefly responsible for the wrongs perpetra-
ted, and of which we will speak presently. It is true that to their cun-
ning, unscrupulousness, deceit and selfishness and falsehood the^ perpet-
uation and power of the Church, its marvellous growth and mighty in-
fluence are due. It is true that in some of the opinions professed, the
masses — who are densely ignorant, of the lowest strata of foreign socie-
ty, where no such thing as republican liberty is known— are sincere. It
is true that many of these people — the masses and toilers of the Mor-
mons—never heard of liberty and law, except the word or mandate of a
despot or sovereign, until the Mormon “missionaries” told them of Zion,
as they call Utah. That they have never heard of law. duty or allegiance
since they came to America, except the law of the priesthood; their duty
to obey that body and the allegiance due to its President, whom they are
taught is God’s immediate agent and supervisor of His affairs on earth.
Still the writer maintains that all are criminals; the leaders greater
criminals, of course, in the proportion that they have greater opportuni-
ties to know the right and choose to teach, to promulgate and to do the
wrong.
Along with this general proposition there follows another. It is this:
That the heads of the Church— President, High Priests and Apostles— not
only know all about the perpetration of crimes of the higher class, but
that they invariably order their commission, or sanction and ratify such
commission; and no Mormon who has been regularly admitted into this
“Church” by baptism and initiation into the secret and oath-bound cer-
emony of the Endowment House, and obeyed implicitly the orders of the
hierarchy at headquarters, has ever yet been arraigned for any act that
all the civilized world calls criminal or immoral, and convicted and cut
off from the Church for such act. And yet it is true that all the crimes
in the catalogue have been and are perpetrated by these “Saints,” not
the one-hundredth part of which is ever known outside the secret cham-
bers of the oath-bound members. To this explanation nothing can give
greater force than the following “official” extract from the record of the
Second District Court of Utah Territory, dated 8:30 p. m. April 4, 1859:
HIS TEN WIVES.
103
This Court has sought diligently and faithfully to do its duty, to admin-
ister the laws of the United States' and of this Territory. It could not
have any other object. But at every turn it has had to encounter diffi-
culties and embarrassments. Men high in authority in the Mormon
Church as well as men holding civil authority under the Territorial
Government seem to have conspired to obstruct the course of public jus-
tice and to cripple the efforts of the Court.
The whole community presents a united and organized opposition to
the proper administration of justice. Every art and every expedient
have been employed to cover up and conceal crimes committed by Mor-
mons. Witnesses have been prevented by threats of violence from obey-
ing the summons of this Court, others that have testified have been
driven to seek safety in the protection of United States troops stationed
near here, who, it is proper to say, are here at the requisition of the
Court and for whose presence the Court is responsible. The absolute
necessity of having these troops here has been fully demonstrated by all
that has transpired during the session of Court. To crown all, the
Grand Jury, sworn to perform a high public duty, has lent itself as a
willing instrument to this organized opposition to the laws of the
country and refused to meet its obligations.
A most willing inclination has been manifested to prosecute Indians
and other persons not Mormons for their offenses, while Mormon mur-
derers and thieves are allowed to go unpunished. This Court deter-
mined, as its action manifests, that it will not be used by this commun-
ity for its protection alone, but that it will do justice to all, or it will
do nothing. Not being able to do this the Court now adjourns without
day. John Crodlebough, Judge.
The history of the scores of trials, convictions and imprisonment of
Mormon violators of law is familiar to all intelligent citizens of to-day.
The vast volumes of testimony given by so-called wives are a living
monument of the truth of the propositions with which this article be-
gan. All Mormons are criminals under the laws of this Republic, which
have been pronounced constitutional by the Court of last resort.
In conclusion, it only remains to say that Lorenzo Snow is yet in the
penitentiary, despite every effort that brains, money, false promises and
political bargaining could make.
George Q. Cannon escaped, after capture, and is at large, a wandering
indicted criminal. President John Taylor, God’s vice-gerent on earth,
is hid away in the underground recesses of this sin-cursed land and the
work of polygamy and treason, at their direction, still goes on among
the hundreds of thousands, while our Government temporizes with the
crime, except a few isolated convictions by one or two Courts after pro-
longed delays.
104
HIS TEN WIVES.
Our story is told. The moral is for the reader. The evil is growing
and hourly presents greater difficulties to vex and harass the statesman-
ship and patriotism of the country. With renewed assurances that in
this writing the author has set down naught in mahee nor refr^e
from the truth as in person he saw it, he commends the thoughtful
co^ideraticm of the reader to the hydra- headed evil of which Lorenzo
Snow is one of the most guilty practicers.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11